Linking Disclaimer

Posted By VakilNo1 On Tuesday, June 18th, 2013 With 2 Comments

 

AW ENFORCEMENT LINKS
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Indian
Agencies fighting Economic Crimes (CEIB)
Ministry of Law and Justice
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Indian Courts
Directorate of Public Grievances
Law Commission of India
Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
Bombay Bar
Association
Delhi Police
Calcutta Police
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LINKS
Indian Parliament
President of India
Primes Minister’s Office
Cabinet Secretariat

Supreme Court of India
Constitution of India
Constituent Assembly
Reserve Bank of India
Securities and Exchange Board of India
National Informatics Centre
Planning Commission
Controller General of Accounts
Income Tax Department
Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (
DAVP)
Unit Trust of India
CENTRAL DOCUMENTS
Census of India
Union Budget 2000-2001
Railway Budget
General Budget
Economic Survey 1999-2000
Exim Policy

 

Displaying 11 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Very useful site for practising lawyer as well to peoples who in need of legal guidance.
    Only one suggestion that the Supreme Court judgment may be made available on site.
    Bharat Kulkarni
    Advocate

  2. vaibhavkumar jain says:

    its verry exellent site to known about our indin legal system and more importent for law student.

  3. Abhi says:

    vakilno1 you are really no1

  4. Very useful site for practising lawyer as well to peoples who in need of legal guidance.
    Only one suggestion that the Supreme Court judgment may be made available on site

  5. Dear Mr. Service Provider
    I have 75% completed Matters for Commentary on any Indian – Law, Rules and Regulations, remaining 25% would be completed if you need so. Contact for Revision of Law-Books, Digest on any subject and short-comments on any topic.

    Anant Rai Advocate
    098 38 37 95 10
    [Note: For more Information about me Plz. Search Anant Rai Advocate or Author for Law Books on Google. ]
    ————————————————————–
    Sample of Commentary for observation in order to Contact me for Authorship or for any other Purpose in this regard.

    ———————————————————————————
    Section—— 3, Cr. P. C.
    ——————————-
    Magistrate-comments on—-Section 3 (4) which provides that where, under any law, other than Code of Criminal Procedure, the function exercisable by a Magistrate relate to matters as enumerated in sub clauses (a) and (b) the Magistrate shall be deemed to be either a Judicial Magistrate or an Administrative Magistrate. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Wakf Act, 1995, the District Magistrate has to act on an application by the newly appointed mutwalli or committee along with a certified copy of the order of the Board and direct for delivery of charge. The Magistrate contemplated under section 68(2) has not to go behind the order of the Board appointing mutwalli or Committee nor it can question the said orders which is clear by the specific provisions of Section 68(5) of the Wakf Act. Thus, the Magistrate function is not the appreciation or shifting of evidence or the formulation of any decision hence, Section 3 (4) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted and the nature of the function of the Magistrate is only administrative or executive in nature, hence the Magistrate used in said statute has to be construed as executive Magistrate. The functioning of the Magistrate as contemplated by Section 68(3) being administrative or executive in nature , the conclusion is inescapable that provisions of section 68(2) of the Wakf Act read with section 3 (4)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, clearly refers to the executive Magistrate. ——–MOHD ACHCHEY KHAN AND ANR V/S DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/UPPER SURVEY COMMISSIONER (WAQF) AND ORS , 2011 (4) AllLJ 577, 2011 (89) AllLR 150, 2011 (8) RCR(Civ) 1714

    Magistrate-domain of——Naib Tehsildar may be made Magistrate for the revenue purposes but he cannot be considered to be an Executive Magistrate under the Cr.P.C. or NDPS Act. —–SHANKER LAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA, 2001 (4) AICLR 609, 2002 (1) CriCC 77, 2001 (4) RCR(Cri) 531

    Executive Magistrate-status of—–Sub-Divisional Magistrate is an executive Magistrate and is appointed by State Government under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Code provides that where under any law, other than this Code, the functions exercisable by a Magistrate relates to matters which are administrative or executive in nature such as the granting of a licence, suspension or cancellation of a licence, sanctioning a prosecution or withdrawing from prosecution, they shall be exercisable by an executive Magistrate. Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure functions as Court as provided in Sections 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and other sections falling in Chapter VIII of the Code. He also acts as an administrative or executive officer under various other laws. Thus he is officer as well as a Court. ——JAI PRAKASH AGARWAL V/S PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/S D M, SADAR, DEORIA , 1998 (4) AWC 10, 1999 (1) UPLBEC 697, 1999 (35) AllLR 261
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-attraction of——A combined reading of the above provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Penal Code makes it quite clear that the Cr.P.C. lays down, the procedure to be followed in the trial of the criminal eases except such cases for the trial of which any special form of procedure is prescribed by any other law for the time being in force. Sub-section (22) of Section 4 mandates that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provision contained in the Cr.P.C. but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. The word “otherwise” preceding the words “dealing with” used in the phraseology of Sub-section (2) points out at the fact that the expression “dealing with” is quite exhaustive and comprehensive and covers investigation, inquiry or trial which are some of the aspects of dealing with the offences. Section 5, in express terms, excludes the application of the Cr.P.C., (in the absence of a specific provision therein) to any (1) special law, or (2) local law, or (3) special powers conferred or (4) special form of procedure prescribed by any other law. The effect of Section 5 Cr.P.C., therefore, is to render the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 inapplicable in respect of all matters covered by special law—–HANUMAN SINGH V/S UNION OF INDIA , 1997 CrLJ 1054, 1997 CrLR 102 [see also:Ajmer Singh v. Union of India (1987) 3 SCC 340 : 1987 Cri LJ 1877. ]

    Executive Magistrate-law on——-under Section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-clause (4) (b), it has been provided that a Magistrate who does the duty of an administrative or executive nature, such as, the granting of a licence, the suspension or cancellation of a licence, sanctioning a prosecution or withdrawing from a prosecution shall be known as Executive Magistrate. Under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is a clear provision that all the Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge.—-SANKATHA PRASAD V/S VIMAL KUMAR KAPPOR AND ANR , 1997 (21) AllCriR 3, 1997 (1) AWC 80
    Criminal Courts – classes of——-Section 3 of the Code deals with the construction of references to the words “‘Magistrate, ‘Magistrate of the Second Class,’ ‘Magistrate of the First Class,’ and ‘the Chief Judicial Magistrate’. The classes of criminal Courts are contemplated under S.6 of the Code.——KARTAR SINGH; KRIPA SHANKAR RAI V/S STATE OF PUNJAB , 1994 (1) Crimes 1031, 1994 CrLJ 3139, 1994 (1) CurCriR 162, 1994 (2) JT 423, 1994 (2) LW(Cri) 422, 1994 (Supp1) Scale 1, 1994 (3) SCC 569, 1994 SCC(Cri) 899, 1994 (2) SCR 375
    Magistrate – classification of –
    Legislature in its wisdom had empowered the Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate for recording the statement. The proviso to Sub-section (1) further reveals that the anxiety of the Legislature in barring other person than the Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate from recording the confessions is well apparent as even a police officer on whom powers of the Magistrate have been conferred under any law for the time being in force has been debarred from recording such confessions. The scheme of the Cr PC, 1973, itself provides that the Legislature in its wisdom has classified courts of Executive Magistrate separately than those of the Judicial Magistrate as is apparent from the provision of Section 6 of the Code.—–STATE OF HARYANA V/S PARMANAND SON OF RATI RAM , 1995 CrLJ 396 PUNJAB & HARYANA (D.B.)

    Presidency Magistrate -ambit of——-The reference to the term Presidency Magistrate in the Bombay Police Act has to be construed as reference to the Metropolitan Magistrate as per Section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Section 5 of the Code, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, nothing in it shall affect any special or local law for the time being in force. Admittedly, the Bombay Police Act is a local law. There being no specific provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to the contrary, the provisions of Section 96(i)(ii) of the said Act would govern grant of remand in Greater Bombay and police remand from time to time may be granted but not exceeding 15 days at a time. —–MOHAMMAD DAUD ALIAS MOHD SALEEM V/S SUPERINTENDENT OF DISTRICT JAIL1993 (1) AWC 225, 1993 CrLJ 1358

    Executive Magistrate -powers of——–Section 3 of the 1974 Act provides in its Sub-section (4) that where, under any law, other than this Code, the functions exercisable by a Magistrate relate to matters which are administrative or executive in nature, such as, the granting of a licence the suspension or cancellation of a licence, sanctioning a prosecution or withdrawing from a prosecution, they shall, subject as aforesaid, be exercisable by an Executive Magistrate.——-KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH V/S STATE OF BIHAR , 1989 AIR(Pat) 201, (D.B.)

    Executive Magistrate-function of———Clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code mentions a few functions which are within the ambit of that section and may be either administrative or executive in nature. The functions so mentioned therein are only illustrative and can by no means be said to be exhaustive. Functions akin or similar to them will fall in either of the two categories, i.e. administrative or executive. in view of the nature of the function required to be performed by the Magistrate under section 165(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the functions are only executive in nature and, therefore, have to be performed only by an Executive Magistrate but not by any Judicial Magistrate. —-NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD, BEGAMGANJ V/S JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS, BEGAMGANJ AND ANOTHER , 1987 MPLJ 630 , (D.B.)
    —————————————————————————————
    Section-4
    ———————————————————————————————– Provision of new Code-comments on——The relevant provisions of the new Code is Sections 4, 5 and 27 which correspond to Sections 5, 1 (2) and 29-B of the Old Code. A comparison of the corresponding provisions of the two Codes shows that they are substantially the same and are in effect a reproduction in the new Code of their corresponding provisions in the Old Code. The statement of Objects and Reasons together with Notes of Clauses of the Bill relating to the New Code (The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated 10-12-1970, Part II, at Pages 1309, 1312 and 1314) shows that the Clauses which have finally become Sections 4, 5 and 27 of the new Code were treated as corresponding to the sections of the old Code already referred and incorporated without any material changes. It is, therefore, clear that these provisions of the new Code which alone are relevant for our purpose operate in the same field as the corresponding provisions of the old Code and by these provisions in the New Code the Parliament did not intend to create a new jurisdiction or enlarge the existing ones of the general Courts specified in the Code which had not existed under the old Code. In other words, if the corresponding provisions of the Old Code were capable of co-existence with the provisions of the Bal Adhiniyam and there was no irreconcilable difference between the provisions of the two enactments, then there is no occasion to hold that the provisions of the new Code have altered this position and taken away the exclusive jurisdiction of the Juvenile Courts constituted under the Bal Adhiniyam which undoubtedly was not affected by the corresponding provisions of the old Code even without the aid of Article 254 .——DEVISINGH V/S STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH , 1978 AIR(MP) 100, 1978 CrLJ 585, 1979 ILR(MP) 3930, 1978 JabLJ 126, 1978 MPLJ 238— MADHYA PRADESH (F.B.)

    Provision-comments on—-The Act contains various provisions which differ from the provisions of the Code. Section 4(2) of the Code clearly stipulates that “all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.” Thus, if the special law were to regulate the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise deal with such offences, the provisions of the Code cannot be applied. ——SHARVAN KUMAR V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN , 2012 CrLJ 1480, 2012 (3) RajLW 2044

    Provision-law on—–Section 4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that all offences under any law other than the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and “otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. It is clear from this provision that in so far as the offences under laws other than the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply in their full force subject to any specific or contrary provision made by the law under which the offence is investigated or tried.——Mirza Iqbal Hussain v. State of U.P., 1983 AIR(SC) 60,

    Provision-scope of——Under Section 4(1) of the Cr.P.C. investigation includes all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person other than a Magistrate who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf. ——–VISHNU DUTTA SONI V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN , 2006 CrLJ 1061, 2006 (1) CrLR 335, 2006 (2) RajLW 1016, 2006 (1) WLC(Raj) 780—Raj—DB

    Provision-meaning of——-Subject to the provisions in other enactments all offences under other laws shall also be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with under the provisions of the Code. This means that if another enactment contains any provision which is contrary to the provisions of the Code, such other provision would apply in place of the particular provision of the Code. If there is no such contrary provision in other laws, then provisions of the Code would apply to the matters covered thereby. ————MOLY V/S STATE OF KERALA , 2004 (1) ACE 543, 2004 ACJ 119, 2004 (2) AICLR 869, 2004 AIR(SC) 1890, 2004 AIR(SCW) 1708, 2004 (2) AllCriC 130, 2004 (2) AllCriR 869, 2004 (2) AllCriR 1495, 2004 (5) AllMR 765, 2004 AllMR(Cri) 1486, 2004 (4) ALT(SC) 77, 2004 (2) AWC 1781, 2004 (2) BCR(Cri) 333, 2004 CalCriLR 679, 2004 CriAppR 209, 2004 (2) CriCC 514, 2004 (2) Crimes 341, 2004 CrLJ 1812, 2004 CrLR 648, 2004 (2) CurCriR 121, 2004 (2) EastCriC 206, 2004 (3) GLR 2270, 2004 (19) IndLD 243, 2004 (2) JCC 696, 2004 (4) JT 1, 2004 (2) MhLR 441, 2004 (28) OCR 120, 2004 (2) RajLW 238, 2004 (2) RCR(Cri) 389, 2004 (3) Scale 503, 2004 (4) SCC 584, 2004 SCC(Cri) 1348, 2004 SCCriR 561, 2004 (3) SCR 346, 2004 (2) SLT 942, 2004 (2) Supreme 610, 2004 (2) AWC 1495 —SC

    Provision-comprehension for——Section 4 of the Code says that when in the Statute there is specific provision for trying a particular offence of the said Statute then the provision of the Code shall not apply and the Special Provisions of the Statute or law that is provisions under Section 143 of the Act is saved by saving provision of Section 5 of the Code. Sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the Code has also saved for expeditious trial and endeavour shall be made to conclude trial within six months from the date of filing of complaint. There is no room of doubt that for the purposes of trial an offence falling under the Act, provisions of summary trial Sections 262 to 265 of the Code would be applicable and the summary trial cannot be converted in the warrant trial.——STEEL TUBES OF INDIA V/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA , 2006 (3) AICLR 573, 2007 (1) BankCas 525, 2006 (2) CivCC 117, 2006 CrLJ 1988, 2006 (4) ICC 305, 2006 (1) MPLJ 194, 2006 (1) RCR(Cri) 757 —-MP

    Statutory Provision – comprehension of——Sections 3 and 4 deal with offences committed beyond the territorial limits of India and Section 2 obviously and by contrast refers to offences committed within India. It appears clear that it is Section 2 that has to be looked to determine the liability and punishment of persons who have committed offences within India. The section asserts categorically that every person shall be liable to punishment under the Code for every act or omission contrary to the provisions of the Code and of which he shall be guilty within India. This recognises the general principle of criminal jurisdiction over persons with reference to the locality of the offence committed by them, being within India. The use of the phrase “every person” in Section 2 as contrasted with the use of the phrase “any person” in Section 3 as well as Section 4 (2) of the Code is indicative of the idea that to the extent that the guilt for an offence committed within India can be attributed to a person, every such person without exception is liable for punishment under the Code. Learned counsel for the appellant suggests that the phrase “within India” towards the end of Section 2 must be read with the phrase “every person” at the commencement thereof. But this is far-fetched and untenable. The plain meaning of the phrase “every person” is that it comprehends all persons without limitation and irrespective of nationality, allegiance, rank, status, caste, colour or creed. This section must be understood as comprehending every person without exception barring such as may be specially exempt from criminal proceedings or punishment thereunder by virtue of the Constitution (See Article 361(2) of the Constitution) or any statutory provisions or some well-recognised principle of international law, such as foreign sovereigns, ambassadors, diplomatic agents and so forth, accepted in the municipal law. —–LEE KUN HEE AND ORS V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS , 2012 AIR(SC) 1007, 2012 AIR(SCW) 1316, 2012 (2) AllCriR 1608, 2012 (2) ALT(Cri)(SC) 260, 2012 (3) BCR(Cri) 401, 2012 CrLJ 1551, 2012 (2) JT 237, 2012 (1) RCR(Cri) 884, 2012 (2) Scale 152, 2012 (3) SCC 132, 2012 (2) SCC(Cri) 72

    Criminal Procedure Code-attraction of—–Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code would apply in respect of investigation and trial even in respect of such enactments, but would be subject to any provision regulating the manner of such investigation and trial. ——JAMIRUDDIN ANSARI V/S CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , 2009 AIR(SC) 2781, 2009 AIR(SCW) 4213, 2009 (4) AIRBomR 57, 2009 (5) AIRBomR 57, 2009 AllMR(Cri) 2790, 2009 (3) BCR(Cri) 589, 2009 (3) Crimes(SC) 126, 2009 CrLJ 3961, 2009 (8) JT 169, 2009 (4) MhLJ(Cri) 1, 2011 (5) RCR(Cri) 743, 2009 (7) Scale 263, 2009 (6) SCC 316, 2009 (4) Supreme 754, 2009 (3) AWC 3168

    Code of Criminal Procedure-application of—–Section 4(1) provides for investigation, inquiry or trial for every offence under the Indian Penal Code according to the provision of the Code whereas Section 4(2) provides for offences under other law to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. In absence of a specific provision relating to inquiry, trial, etc. under the special statute it has to be dealt with in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. ——Anosh Ekka V/S State through Vigilance Bureau , 2009 AIR(Jhar) 862, 2010 (2) Crimes(Jhar) 315, 2010 CrLJ 259, 2010 (1) RCR(Cri) 935 — JHARKHAND
    Code of Criminal Procedure-¬operation of———In the absence of a specific provision made in the statute indicating that offences will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to that statute, the same will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the Criminal P.C. In other words, Criminal P. C. is the parent statute which provides for investigation, inquiring into and trial of cases by criminal Courts of various designations.——-A. R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak AIR 1984 SC 718
    Code-application of—–Section 4(2) of the Code envisages that all other offences under law would be tried under the Code subject to any enactment regulating the manner of trial or otherwise dealing with such offences. That being so in view of the non-obstante clause in Section 142 of the Act provisions of the Code which are inconsistent with those of Section 142 of the Act would not apply to the case being tried under Section 138. ——-A S IMPEX LIMITED V/S DELHI HIGH COURT, 2003 (8) AD(Del) 189, 2004 (2) AICLR 630, 2004 (1) Crimes 555, 2004 (2) DCR 8, 2003 (107) DLT 734, 2003 (108) DLT 559, 2004 (72) DRJ 1, 2003 (3) JCC(Del) 292, 2004 (136) PunLR 3, 2004 (1) RCR(Cri) 427—DB
    Code-aid of—— A reading of the sub-section makes it clear that subject to the provisions in other enactments all offences under other Jaws shall also be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with under the provision of the Code, This means that if other enactment contains any provision which is contrary to the provisions of the Code, such other functions would apply in place of the particular provision of the Code, If there is no such contrary provision in other laws, then provisions of the code would apply to the matters covered thereby. ——GANGULA ASHOK V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH , 2000 (1) AICLR 578, 2000 AIR(SC) 740, 2000 AIR(SCW) 279, 2000 (1) ALD(Cri) 519, 2000 (1) AllCriC 508, 2000 (1) AllCriR 451, 2000 (1) AllCriR 578, 2000 AllMR(Cri) 1072, 2000 (1) ALT(Cri)(SC) 174, 2000 (5) BCR 265, 2000 (5) BCR(Cri) 265, 2000 CalCriLR 162, 2000 (1) CalHN 47, 2000 (1) ChandCriC 198, 2000 CriAppR 184, 2000 (1) Crimes(SC) 196, 2000 CrLJ 819, 2000 CrLR 274, 2000 (1) CurCriR 146, 2000 (1) EastCriC 344, 2000 (1) JCC 187, 2000 (1) JT 379, 2000 (1) KerLT 609, 2000 (2) LRI 553, 2000 MadLJ(Cri) 425, 2000 (18) OCR 364, 2000 (2) PLJR(SC) 25, 2000 (1) RCR(Cri) 797, 2000 (1) Scale 294, 2000 (2) SCC 504, 2000 SCC(Cri) 488, 2000 SCCriR 328, 2000 (2) SCJ 489, 2000 (1) SCR 468, 2000 (2) SRJ 287, 2000 (1) Supreme 378, 2000 (1) UJ 679, 2000 (2) MPHT 101 –SC

    Criminal Procedure Code-applicability of—– From a plain reading of Section 4. Cr.P.C. it emerges that the provision of Criminal Procedure Code are applicable where an offence under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law is being investigated, inquired into, tried or otherwise dealt with. ——ATTIQ – UR – REHMAN V/S MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI , 1996 (2) AD(SC) 460, 1996 (1) AICLR 688, 1996 AIR(SC) 956, 1996 AIR(SC) 1267, 1996 AIR(SCW) 1348, 1996 (1) AllCriR 688, 1996 (1) CCJ 674, 1996 CriAppR 184, 1996 CrLJ 1997, 1996 CrLR 348, 1996 (2) JT 670, 1996 (2) RRR 2, 1996 (2) Scale 557, 1996 (3) SCC 37, 1996 SCC(Cri) 457, 1996 (3) SCR 19, 1996 (2) Supreme 463, 1996 (63) DLT 406 —SC

    Code of Criminal Procedure-regulation of—– The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulate investigation and trial of all the offences under any law other than Indian Penal Code also subject to any provisions contained in any special law which may provide to the contrary, in view of the provisions as contained in Section 4(2), Cr.P.C. there are no provisions to the contrary contained in the SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989——PAPPU SINGH V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH , 1995 CrLJ 2803 —All
    Jurisdiction-determination of—–Inquiry and trial of offences contemplated under the Indian Penal Code, are to be conducted in the manner stipulated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. If The offences have been framed under sections 403 (dishonest misappropriation), 405 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) and 423 (dishonest/fraudulent execution of an instrument containing a false statement relating to consideration) of the Indian Penal Code. The denial of liability by the accused under the agreement is allegedly the basis of the criminal complaint lodged by complainant. The place where the agreement was executed, as well as, the places where different constituents of the agreement were carried out, are material factors to determine the relevant court(s) which would/could have jurisdiction in the matter. The place where the consequence of the criminal action (alleged in the complaint) ensues, may also be relevant for the said purpose. And finally, place(s) of receipt and dispatch of communications exchanged by the rival parties, revealing deception as an ingredient of cheating alleged by the complainant, can also be relevant to identify the court(s) having jurisdiction in the matter. The aforesaid relevance becomes apparent from Sections 179, 181 and 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ——-LEE KUN HEE AND ORS V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS , 2012 AIR(SC) 1007, 2012 AIR(SCW) 1316, 2012 (2) AllCriR 1608, 2012 (2) ALT(Cri)(SC) 260, 2012 (3) BCR(Cri) 401, 2012 CrLJ 1551, 2012 (2) JT 237, 2012 (1) RCR(Cri) 884, 2012 (2) Scale 152, 2012 (3) SCC 132, 2012 (2) SCC(Cri) 72

    Cases affecting a child-procedure for——Since the normal procedure provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been excluded by the COMMISSIONS FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS ACT, 2005 so all other cases affecting a child shall proceed in accordance with the procedure provided in the Code. ——-IN REFERENCE RECEIVED FROM: PRESIDING OFFICER,CHILDRENS COURT & SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST-NIMAR KHANDWA (M P ) V/S VINOD S/O KISHANLAL GAWLI , 2012 (4) MPHT 492

    Juvenile-provision for——-The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 does not provide any provision for set-off of the period already spent by the juvenile, but it also does not provide contrary provisions for drawing inference of non-application of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code. in absence of contra provisions, the provisions of Section 428 of the Code in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Code would be applicable, in case of juvenile. ——PRADEEP KASHYAP V/S STATE OF C G , 2012 (4) CgBCLJ 528, 2013 (1) MPHT(Chh) 60, 2013 (1) CgLRW 101

    Acquittal of juvenile-provision for—–A bare reading of above provision makes it clear that no appeal shall lie from any order of acquittal made by the Board in respect of a juvenile and therefore, an acquittal appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Cr. P. C. against the order of acquittal passed by the Board in respect of a juvenile alleged to have committed an offence would not be maintainable. ——S L WARKARE V/S STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR , 2012 CrLJ 4368 , (D.B.)

    N.I. Act-provision for—–In view of provisions of Sections 4 & 5 of the Cr.P.C., Section 145 of the N.I. Act does not have override effect over Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. —–Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.,2009 3 WLC(Raj) 766

    Other enactment – overriding effect——-Sub-section (2) of Section 4 provides that offence under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offence. Outcome of the aforesaid is that if any other enactment provides manner and place of investigation, enquiry, trial or otherwise deals with the offence, the other enactment will have overriding effect. Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, provides that nothing contained in the Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.——RAKESH SHARMA V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR , 2010 (4) BankCas 423, 2010 (4) Crimes(Raj) 714, 2010 (1) CrLR 752, 2010 (1) DCR 785, 2010 (2) RajLW 1847, 2011 (6) RCR(Cri) 246, 2010 (3) WLC(Raj) 191

    Other law- procedure for——Section 4(2) of the Cr.P.C. postulates that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise, dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Section 5 of the Cr.P.C., which is the saving clause, stipulates that nothing contained in the Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. ——RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED V/S STATE AND ANR , 2010 (4) BankCas 514, 2011 (2) CivCC 381, 2011 (2) Crimes(Del) 265, 2010 (173) DLT 185, 2010 (7) RCR(Cri) 1708

    Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-procedure for—–Once offence is disclosed under the provisions of Indian Penal Code read with the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, then the matter has to be dealt with as per provisions as contained under Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Lodging of the F.I.R. And investigation is not at all prohibited under law, and trial of offence has to be dealt with strictly, in accordance with law.——KAILASH GUPTA V/S STATE OF U P AND ORS , 2011 (4) Crimes(All) 532, (D.B.)

    Special legislations -provision for—–Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated and tried as per the provisions of the Code. The same, however, would be subject to special provisions to the contrary. Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains a saving clause in terms of which the jurisdiction of special legislations is saved. The Jurisdiction of the Special Court was required to be determined with reference to the said provision. The Act is a special Act. The section conferring jurisdiction on the Special Courts under the Act contains a ‘Non Obstante’ clause. It, thus, prevails over any other Law.——R Venkatakrishnan V/S Central Bureau of Investigation , 2009 (4) AICLR 361, 2010 AIR(SC) 1812, 2010 AIR(SCW) 2195, 2010 (2) ALD(Cri) 208, 2009 (10) JT 597, 2010 (2) MadLJ(Cri) 545, 2009 (4) RCR(Cri) 140, 2009 (11) Scale 102, 2009 (11) SCC 737, 2010 (1) SCC(Cri) 164, 2009 (12) SCR 762 [See also: Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and others, 2001 3 SCC 71.]

    S.C.S.T.Act-law on—–Rule 7 of the SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) RULES, 1995 provided rank of investigation officer to be not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. An officer below that rank cannot act as investigating officer. The provisions in Section 9 of the SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 and Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 4 of the Code when jointly read lead to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation to an offence under Section 3 of the Act by an officer not appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid. But when the offence complained are both under the IPC and any of the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act the investigation which is being made by a competent police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be quashed for non investigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act by a competent police officer. In such a situation the proceedings shall proceed in appropriate Court for the offences punishable under the IPC notwithstanding investigation and the charge sheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act for taking cognizance of that offence. ——STATE OF M P V/S CHUNNILAL @ CHUNNI SINGH, 2009 (3) AICLR 134, 2009 AIR(SCW) 5335, 2009 (2) ALD(Cri) 494, 2009 (3) BBCJ(SC) 169, 2009 (2) BLJR 1828, 2010 (1) GLR 260, 2009 (6) JT 256, 2009 (2) KerLT 335, 2009 (3) LawHerald(SC) 1709, 2009 (2) PCCR(SC) 307, 2010 (2) RajLW 1021, 2009 (2) RCR(Cri) 758, 2009 (5) Scale 710, 2009 (12) SCC 649, 2010 (1) SCC(Cri) 683, 2009 (4) Supreme 418, 2009 (5) UJ 2061

    Negotiable Instruments Act-law on——Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not exclude the examination of the complainant and witnesses on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act refers to evidence of the complainant on affidavit which does not relate to the stage before issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. A specific reference was required to be made in these Sections for dispensing with the examination of the complainant and his witnesses on oath by the Magistrate. In absence of it, it cannot be said that the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act would override the provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C. While considering the provisions of Section 4 Cr. P.C.—–PRAKASH CHAND V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN , 2010 (1) BankCas 387, 2010 (1) CivCC 206, 2010 (2) RajLW 1889 — RAJASTHAN

    Special law-meaning of—–Special law means the provision of law which is not applicable generally but which applies to a particular or specified subject or class or subject. In other words where there is a specific punishment provided in a special Act it takes precedence over of the general punishment under the penal code and that where there Is no specific punishment provided under special law, general law of the land, under the penal code comes into operation if the requirements under any Section thereof are satisfied.——-MANISH KHEMKA V/S STATE OF JHARKHAND , 2009 CrLJ 3770, 2009 (2) ECC 535, 2010 (7) RCR(Cri) 763, 2009 (2) AIRJharHCR 1022 —- JHARKHAND

    Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957-law on——offences relating to storage, transportation, transaction etc. of the minerals in contravention of the provision of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and also the Rules of Jharkhand Minerals Dealers’ Rule, 2007 came within the purview of the said Act and Rules and as such, any investigation, inquiry or trial shall be governed by the Special Law and not under the general law. Therefore, any prosecution launched by the informant not by way of complaint but by way of information to the police is quite illegal. In other words, instant prosecution can be said to be nonest in the eye of law and hence, it is not sustainable in law. ——-MANISH KHEMKA V/S STATE OF JHARKHAND , 2009 CrLJ 3770, 2009 (2) ECC 535, 2010 (7) RCR(Cri) 763, 2009 (2) AIRJharHCR 1022—- JHARKHAND

    Delhi Municipal Corporation Act-provision for—–provisions of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable where an offence under the IPC or under any other law is being investigated, inquired into, tried or otherwise dealt with. These offences under any other law could also be investigated, inquired into or tried with according to the provisions of Cr.P.C. except in case of an offence where the procedure prescribed there under is different than the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. Section 466A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act specifically lays down that the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply to the offences prescribed under various provisions of the said Act as if it were a cognizable offence for the purpose of investigation of such offence. It is so specifically provided under Section 155 of the Electricity Act also. —–G B S Bhalla V/S State , 2009 (6) AD(Del) 362, 2010 (6) RCR(Cri) 860– DELHI

    Legislature of a State-constitutional provision for——-Article 254 of the Constitution reads as follows:
    “(1) If any provision of a law made by the legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any,; provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the Provisions of clause (2),the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy be void.
    (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament, or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been, .reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State.
    Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.”

    Magistrate of 1st Class- competence of———General provision to the competence of the Magistrate of 1st Class and that of the higher Courts based on the quantum of sentence would nevertheless apply to the trial of offences under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Whatever jurisdiction is vested in a Court of Magistrate of Ist Class, would necessarily be possessed by the higher Court of the Court of Sessions or Additional Sessions Judge. ——–S MOHAN V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN , 2008 CrLJ 4382, 2008 (2) CrLR 1084, 2008 (4) RajLW 3573 — RAJASTHAN
    Criminal Court-exclusive jurisdiction of——It is well established where penalties are provided for contravention of provisions of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 found in course of prosecution then unless it is specifically provided in the Act the power to impose penalty is exclusively with the Criminal Court. This is so because of Section 4(2) read with Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those Sections provide that in respect of offences under any other law (other than Indian Penal Code), they shall be enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure subject to any changes that may be done in the Act which defines those offences. ——R G Holdings Private Limited V/S State of Bihar , 2008 (56) BLJR 1875 [Vide also: Veena Theatre Private Limited and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Anr.,1988 PLJR 1(HC) and Regent Cinema, Patna v. The State of Bihar and Ors.,1993 2 PLJR 279. ]

    Investigation, Inquiry, Trial-comments on—— Section 4(2) of the CrPC, 1973 prescribes that offences under any law other than the IPC shall be investigated, inquired into, tried or otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the CrPC, subject to any other enactment in force. Section 5 of CrPC, 1973 removes any doubts that may prevail in this context by clarifying that any special or local law that may then have been in existence shall remain unaffected by the provisions of CrPC. Therefore, whilst the trial of offences under Section 381 of IPC must be conducted in consonance with the CrPC ( as laid down in Section 4(1) thereof), for offences under the OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1923 (being statute other than the IPC) the provisions of the CrPC would not be attracted if they are in variance with or incongruent or irreconcilable thereto. In other words, any part of the CrPC which is in disharmony with the OS Act will not have any pertinence or efficacy. This is also the position that obtains so far as the Court which is to try offences under the OS Act is concerned, as adumbrated by Section 26(2) of CrPC. Ergo, the correct course to charter is to first ascertain the postulations in the OS Act, and only if there are none, should one travel to the CrPC and not the other way around. This distinction will be of seminal importance when the sundry sections are interpreted .———-N G SHETH; ANIRUDDHA BAHAL V/S C B I , 2008 (7) AD(Del) 233, 2008 (151) DLT 789 —DB

    Jurisdiction-comments on—–Place of jurisdiction would be determinative by reference to the place where the main offence was committed. ——-CBI, AHD, PATNA V/S BRAJ BHUSHAN PRASAD , 2001 (4) AICLR 315, 2001 AIR(SC) 4014, 2001 AIR(SCW) 3998, 2001 AIRJharHCR 499, 2001 (2) AllCriC 1026, 2001 (3) AllCriR 2681, 2001 (4) AllCriR 315, 2001 (4) Crimes 69, 2001 (4) Crimes(SC) 69, 2001 CrLJ 4683, 2001 (4) CurCriR 159, 2001 (3) EastCriC 174, 2001 (8) JT 348, 2001 (4) LRI 19, 2001 (4) PLJR(SC) 107, 2001 (4) RCR(Cri) 482, 2001 (6) Scale 641, 2001 (9) SCC 432, 2002 SCC(Cri) 576, 2001 (10) SRJ 184, 2001 (7) Supreme 413, 2001 (2) UC 686 —SC-(F.B.) [Vide also: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI V/S JUHIE SINGH , 2008 CrLJ 2186 , V K PURI V/S CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 2006 (7) AD(Del) 634, 2006 (133) DLT 521, 2006 (3) JCC 1493, 2006 (4) RCR(Cri) 597—Del ]
    ]

    Indian Penal Code-exclusion of—–If there is special provision of investigation and prosecution provided in any special Act, it excludes the application of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, as per Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ——VIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL V/S STATE OF BIHAR , 2007 (2) BLJR 2763

    FERA and Customs Act-comments on——- Section 4(2) of the Code corresponds to Section 5(2) of the old Code. Section 26(b) of the Code corresponds to Section 29 of the old Code except for a slight change. Under the present Section 26(b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Court and when no Court is mentioned in this behalf, may be tried by the High Court or other court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable. The combined operation of Sections 4(2) and 26(b) of the Code is that the offence complained of should be investigated or inquired into or tried according to the provisions of the Code where the enactment which creates the offence, indicates no special procedure. To sum up Section 4 is comprehensive and that Section 5 is not in derogation of Section 4 (2) and it only relates tot he extent of application of the Code in the matter of territorial and other jurisdiction but does not nullify the effect of Section 4(2). In short, the provisions of this Code would be applicable to the extent in the absence of any contrary provision in the special Act or any special provision excluding the jurisdiction or applicability of the Code. In fact, the second limb of Section 4(2) itself limits the application of the provisions of the Code reading, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the operation of Section 4(2) of the Code is straightway attracted to the area of investigation, inquiry and trial of the offences under the special laws including the FERA and Customs Act and consequently S. 167 of the Code can be made applicable during the investigation or inquiry of an offence under the special Acts also inasmuch as there is no specific provision contrary to that excluding the operation of Section 167.——-Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan and Anr. AIR 1994 SC 1775

    NDPS Act 1985-comments for——– Provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply during course of investigation, inquiry or trial of an offence under special laws which must of necessity include NDPS Act 1985. Consequently Section 172 Cr.P.C. shall also apply during investigation or inquiry of an offence under NDPS Act inasmuch as there is no specific provision in the NDPS Act contrary to or excluding the operation of Section 172. ——JASBIR SINGH V/S N C B , 2007 (98) DRJ 404—Del

    Electricity Act-comments for—–in view of the provisions of Section 4(2) and Section 5 of the Code, where a special Act regulates the manner of investigation, inquiry, trial or otherwise dealing with such offences, the offences shall be dealt with, in accordance with the procedure, prescribed under the Special Act. The Electricity Act does not prescribe a specific procedure for investigation. Section 50 of the Electricity Act, however, lays down that no prosecution shall be launched except “at the instance of the Government, State Electricity Board and Electric Inspector or a person aggrieved” and, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 of the Electricity Act would have to be adhered to. ——B B SINGHAL V/S CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , 2007 (1) AICLR 550, 2007 (1) RCR(Cri) 93—P&H

    General Law and special law-comments on——-Investigation can be made by the police. Cognizance is automatic as per law. Under Section 2(r) of the Cr. P.C. the police report can be filed. The police report means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. There is a procedure for investigation by the police under Section 157 of the Cr. P.C. Section 157 speaks about procedure for investigation whereas Section 190 of the Cr. P.C. speaks about cognizance of offences by the Magistrate.special law always prevails over general law. But when the special law gives accommodation to general law, there is no bar in proceeding with it irrespective of existence of such special law. Above section is unique in that way. It is in effect a supplementary law to the general law. Therefore, by virtue of such law one can proceed in accordance with Cr. P.C. unless, of course, he is genuinely prevented by any provision of the Act to that effect. Hence, now we have to enter upon such arena.—–MUSTAQ ALIAS MUSTAFA V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH , 2006 (3) ACC 734, 2006 (7) ADJ 97, 2006 (3) AWC 3146 —All-DB

    Children Act-comments for—–Section 27 is not a specific provision to the contrary within the meaning of Section 5 of the Code. The intention of the Parliament was not to exclude the trial of the delinquent children for offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, inasmuch as Section 27 does not contain any expression to the effect “notwithstanding anything contained in any Children Act passed by any State Legislature. Section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is merely an enabling provision which does not express any contrary intention to undo the saving provided in Section 5 of the Code. ——-GANGU SINGH ALIAS GANGA SINGH V/S STATE , 2005 CrLJ 1864, 2005 (3) RCR(Cri) 160 –UTT-DB

    Special Court-law for—– “Special Court” constituted under the SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 can not take cognizance directly as a Court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate in view of Section 193, Cr.PC. Sections 4 and 5 of Cr.PC do not indicate any departure from this position. ——GODEN PRASAD V/S MANUA , 2004 (4) MPHT 457 –MP
    Special Court-comments for—– Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognizance of the offence when the case is committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. In other words, a complaint or a charge-sheet cannot straightway be laid down before the Special Court under the Act. ——VIDYADHARAN V/S STATE OF KERALA , 2003 ACJ 677, 2004 (1) AICLR 341, 2004 AIR(SC) 536, 2003 AIR(SCW) 6511, 2003 (2) ALD(Cri) 1019, 2004 (1) AllCriC 1, 2004 (1) AllCriR 341, 2003 (12) AllIndCas 1, 2004 AllMR(Cri) 814, 2004 (1) BCR(Cri) 752, 2004 (1) BLJR 497, 2004 CalCriLR 14, 2004 (1) CalLJ 108, 2004 (1) CriCC 516, 2003 (4) Crimes 497, 2004 CrLJ 605, 2003 (4) CurCriR 388, 2004 (13) IndLD 225, 2003 (9) JT 89, 2004 (1) KerLT 105, 2004 MadLJ(Cri) 234, 2004 (2) MhLJ 596, 2004 (2) MPLJ 251, 2004 (27) OCR 11, 2004 (1) OrissaLR 11, 2004 (1) RCR(Cri) 28, 2003 (9) Scale 581, 2004 (1) SCC 215, 2004 SCC(Cri) 260, 2004 (1) ShimLC 160, 2003 (7) SLT 219, 2004 (1) SRJ 501, 2003 (8) Supreme 121—-SC

    Wild Life Act-comments on—–All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the Code of Criminal Procedure but it shall be subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. In view of specific provision under the Wild Life Act, apart from the police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf or the Chief Wild Life Warden or authorised officer or any Forest Officer can inspect, conduct search or inquire, seize article mentioned in the Cls. (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1). To this extent, there is contrary provision under the Wild Life Act and would prevail as provided under sub-section (2) of S.4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ——–MOTI LAL V/S CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , 2002 (2) AICLR 679, 2002 AIR(SC) 1691, 2002 AIR(SCW) 1626, 2002 (1) AllCriC 1001, 2002 (2) AllCriR 679, 2002 (2) AllCriR 1192, 2002 AllLJ 1158, 2002 (3) ALT(SC) 401, 2002 (2) BLJR 1123, 2002 (3) CalHN 112, 2002 (2) Crimes 193, 2002 CrLJ 2060, 2002 CrLR 451, 2002 (2) CurCriR 66, 2002 (2) EastCriC 144, 2002 (2) JCC 901, 2002 (4) JT 31, 2002 (3) LRI 96, 2002 (2) RajCriC 532, 2002 (2) RCR(Cri) 353, 2002 (3) Scale 435, 2002 (4) SCC 713, 2002 SCC(Cri) 889, 2002 SCCriR 412, 2002 (3) SCJ 28, 2002 (2) SCR 995, 2002 (3) SLT 144, 2002 (5) SRJ 325, 2002 (3) Supreme 254, 2002 (2) UC 41, 2002 (1) UJ 694 —–SC

    Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act-comments on—–The special provisions to the contrary will override the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Clause (2) of Section 4, Cr.P.C. further provides that “all offences under any law shall be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with accordance to the provisions, but. subject to the enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwtse dealing with such offences.” From the analysis of provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Sections 4 and 5 of the Cr.P.C. it is clear that except for offences under Sections 19, 24 and 27-A of the Act, the provisions for bail as given in the Cr.P.C. will apply. The offences no doubt are also cognizable and to this extent also the provisions of the Act will prevail over the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, in the matter of bail the provisions of Cr.P.C. will apply.——ABDUL AZIZ V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH , 2002 (44) AllCriC 910, 2002 (2) AllCriR 1120, 2002 AllLJ 1231, 2002 CrLJ 2913, 2002 (1) EFR 598, 2002 (3) RCR(Cri) 416 —All

    Section 36 of N.D.P.S. Act-comments on——It is clear that in case the punishment provided for the offence under the N.D.P.S.Act is more than three years, the offence is triable by Special Court and to that extent the provision of Section 36-A N.D.P.S. Act over ride the provisions of the Cr.P.C. The trial for offences under the N.D.P.S.Act which are punishable for imprisonment of three years or less should be a summary trial by the Magistrate under Chapter XXI of the Cr.P.C. all the offences should be tried according to the provisions of Cr.P.C. except where there is special provision in any other enactment regarding the trial of any offence. Section 36-A of N.D.P.S.Act only provide for trial by Special Courts for offences punishable under N.D.P.S.Act with imprisonment for a term of more than three years only. Therefore, if an offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term upto three years, it shall have to be tried by the Magistrate in accordance with the provision of Section 4(2) Cr.P.C.——-RAJESH SINGH V/S STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH , 2002 CrLJ 2680, 2002 (3) RCR(Cri) 108, 2002 AllLJ 922 —All

    Delhi Special Police Establishment-comments on——Section 55 of the WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972 enumerates the category of persons on whose complaint alone the Court is empowered to take cognizance of any offence against the Act. This section is somewhat akin to Sections 195, 198 and 199 of Cr.P.C. where the Court is debarred from taking cognizance of an offence except on the complaint made by the persons specified in the aforesaid sections. The requirement regarding filing of a complaint by specified persons alone does not come within the domain of investigation. Therefore, the provisions of the Act do not at all show that it is a special Act providing comprehensively for investigation of offences under the Act which may come within the purview of Section 5, Cr.P.C. and exclude the jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to investigate any offence under the Act.——MOTI LAL V/S CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , 2001 AIHC 2319, 2001 (42) AllCriC 556, 2001 (1) AllCriR 733, 2001 AllLJ 863, 2001 CrLJ 2086, 2001 (3) RCR(Cri) 118 — All-DB

    Section 37 of the NDPS-view for——Section 37 of the NDPS Act starts with a non obstante clause stating that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no person accused of an offence prescribed therein shall be released on bail unless the conditions contained therein are satisfied. Consequently the power to grant bail under any of the provisions of Cr. P.C. should necessarily be subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.—–NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, JODHPUR V/S KISHAN LAL , 1992 (2) AICLR 233, 1991 AIR(SC) 558, 1992 (2) BCR 4, 1991 CriAppR 114, 1991 (1) Crimes 467, 1991 CrLJ 654, 1991 CrLR 178, 1991 (52) ELT 328, 1991 (1) GLH 131, 1991 (1) JT 258, 1991 (1) MhLJ 204, 1991 (1) RCR(Cri) 338, 1991 (1) Scale 97, 1991 (1) SCC 705, 1991 SCC(Cri) 265, 1991 (1) SCJ 341, 1991 (1) SCR 139, 1991 (2) UJ 121, 1991 AIR(SCW) 339 –SC

    Contemnor-status of—–Contempt of courts is not an offence within the meaning of Section 4(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, nor the alleged contemnor is an accused person within the meaning of Section 5 of the Indian Oath Act, 1973 and similarly the alleged contemnor cannot be said to be a person accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. ——ABID ALI V/S J N SINGH, REGIONAL MANAGER, UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , 1992 (1) AWC 81, 1992 CrLJ 692—-All

    Gram Panchayat-status of—–The Gram Panchayat while acting under S. 23 also cannot be said to be exercising any civil or revenue judicial functions as envisaged in Chapter V of the Act. The procedure to be followed by the Gram Panchayat while exercising civil / revenue judicial functions is similar to that of a suit and the Gram Panchayat is deemed to be civil or revenue court, as the case may be, while performing those functions. While acting under S. 23, the Gram Panchayat punishes the disobedience of its orders passed under S. 21 and 22. The orders passed under S. 22 are only of administrative nature, though under the other section they can be said to be of quasi judicial nature. The function of imposing fine or disobedience of its order would obviously be a quasi judicial function but the panchayat while doing so cannot be said to be exercising either criminal, civil or revenue jurisdiction conferred under the Act. If the Gram Panchayat is only imposing fine for civil wrong that is disobedience of its orders passed under S. 21 or 22 there would be no bar in imposing a recurring fine so long as its disobedience continues.——-SURAT SINGH V/S PUNJAB STATE , 1985 AIR(P&H) 301, 1985 (2) CurLJ 451, 1985 PunLJ 402, 1985 (88) PunLR 219, 1985 (2) RCR(Cri) 311, 1985 RentLR 450, 1985 RRR 71, 1985 (2) RCR(Cri) 497- PUNJAB & HARYANA (F.B.)

    Criminal court-guidelines for—–Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code (for Short IPC) and other laws. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 deals with’ offences under Indian Penal Code while Sub-section (2) thereof provides that all offences under any other law i.e. other than the offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into) ‘tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions viz. the provisions of the Code, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. It would follow as a necessary corollary that where any, special statute prescribes offences and simultaneously specifies the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dialing with such offence, the provisions of the Code shall not. apply to that extent. So, it is to be seen if any provision to the contrary is made in the Act which may indicate that an offence under the Act is not to be investigated, inquired into, tried Or otherwise dealt with under the Code. Evidently the power of seizure of smuggled goods or any conveyance used for carriage of such goods etc. vests in a proper officer under the Act. The term “proper officer” means in relation to any functions” to be performed under the ‘Act, the officer of Customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Collector of Customs. Therefore, once’ the goods’ are properly seized, the power to retain custody of such goods and order their confiscation or release under the provisions of Section 125 of the Act would naturally vest in the ‘ adjudicating authorities under the ‘Act, as specified in Section 122’ of the Act. Hence, there can be no manner of doubt that a criminal court will exercise only such powers which do not, in any manner, impinge upon the authority of ‘the Customs Officers in relation to goods seized by them. It-is, however, conceded that there is no provision in the Act for handing over the seized property to the owner pending adjudication under section 124 & 125 or pending trial of the accused in a court of law under Section 135 of the Act. ——RANDHIR SINGH, V P VERMA V/S DIFECTOR OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, MAL SINGH , 1986 CrLJ 1208, 1986 (29) DLT 2, 1985 (9) DRJ 218, 1986 (2) RCR(Cri) 468, 1985 RLR 548 — DELHI

    maxim “generalia specialibus non derogant”-comments on——Section 4 deals with cognizable offences triable under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. Its sub-section (1) lays down that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code. However, its sub-section (2) provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions but subject to any enactment for the time being inforce regulating the manner or place of investigating, enquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences (emphasis supplied). Evidently this sub-section contains a statutory recognition of the principle that a special law creating offences may also create special procedure for dealing with them. In other words, the special law creating any special procedure would not be invalid as being inconsistent with the provisions of the Code. However, there can be no manner of doubt that where an enactment provides a special procedure only for some matters, its provisions must apply in regard to those matters and the provisions of the Code will apply to the matters on which the special law is silent. This position is further amplified by Section 5 of the Code which provides that nothing in the Code shall affect any special law. The said provision embodies the maxim “generalia specialibus non derogant”. ——-F D LARKINS, JASBIR SINGH V/S STATE OF DELHI , 1984 (2) Crimes 734, 1984 (26) DLT 486— DELHI

    Complaint-maintainability of—– From a combined reading of Section 4 (2) with S. 190 of the Cr. P. C., it transpires that upon a complaint filed by a person setting out facts therein which constitutes the offence before a Magistrate specified in Section 190, the Magistrate will be competent to take cognizance of the offence irrespective of the qualifications or eligibility of the complainant to file the complaint. It must, however, be conceded that where a provision to the contrary is made in any statute, which may indicate the qualification or eligibility of a complainant to file the complaint, the Magistrate before taking cognizance is entitled and has power to inquire whether the complainant satisfies the eligibility criteria. One illustration would indicate what can be a provision to the contrary as contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 195 (1) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence set out therein except on the complaint in writing of the public savant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Similarly sub-section (2) of Section 195 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any of the offences specified therein except on the complaint in writing to that Court, or to some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Section 198 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Section 199 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provides that no prosecution for an offence under the Act, not being an offence under Section 14 or Section 14-A, shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the Central Government or the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf, by general or special order, by the Central Government or the State Government . It is thus crystal clear that anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a Magistrate entitled to take cognizance under Section 190 and unless any statutory provision prescribes any special qualification or eligibility criteria for putting the criminal law in motion, no Court can decline to take cognizance on the sole ground that the complainant was not competent to file the complaint.——VISHWA MITTER V/S O P PODDAR , 1984 AIR(SC) 5, 1983 AllCriC 367, 1984 AllCriR 60, 1983 ArbLR 394, 1983 BBCJ(SC) 164, 1984 CriAppR 45, 1983 (2) Crimes 834, 1984 CrLJ 1, 1983 CrLR 621, 1984 (4) PTC 30, 1984 (1) RCR(Cri) 196, 1983 (4) SCC 701, 1984 SCC(Cri) 29, 1984 SCCriR 79, 1984 (1) SCR 176—-SC
    ————————————————————————————

  6. Johnc898 says:

    I really enjoy reading on this website, it holds great articles. Don’t put too fine a point to your wit for fear it should get blunted. by Miguel de Cervantes. keeakdfeeabc

  7. Your Name... says:

    2014 (3) RCR (civil) 610

  8. Your Name... says:

    where can i get the above citation in text form on the web

  9. I Want to provide Legal aid to needy Person with Case -Laws

  10. p says:

    i belong to jaat caste in haryana, i am working as a class 1 employee in govt bank from last 1 year.,, my father comes under non creamy layer, am i eligible for obc quota??? thanx in advance

  11. DEAR SIR,

    PLEASE SEND ME THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FOR LOSS OF RT BOOK WHICH IS NOMINATED IN POLICE STATION.

    S.C.KANDALGAONKAR

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>