Magistrate Loses Jurisdiction to Pass Subsequent Orders Once Offences Under Prevention of Corruption Act Are Added

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Learned Magistrate had the jurisdiction to pass orders extending investigation and taking cognizance after the addition of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act

The court held

The court refused to quash the FIR/proceedings but set aside and quashed all orders passed by the Learned Magistrate after September 18, 2006, for lack of jurisdiction

It also directed

The CJM, Darjeeling, was directed to immediately transfer the case records to the concerned Special Judge under the PC Act. The Special Judge is directed to take appropriate steps, including proceedings against the prime accused and considering the petitioner's discharge on merits if an application is filed. The interim order was vacated

01Facts

An FIR was registered on May 23, 2006, against the petitioner and others for misappropriation of funds (approx. Rs. 5.14 crore) from the Sarba Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) account in Darjeeling

pp. 2-3

On September 18, 2006, the investigation agency added Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act)

p. 8

Despite the addition of these special sections, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) continued to pass orders, including extending the time for investigation on May 28, 2009, and taking cognizance on August 12, 2009

p. 7

The petitioner sought discharge on the ground that investigation was not completed within the statutory period under Section 167(5) CrPC (WB Amendment), which was rejected by both the CJM and subsequently the Revisional Court

p. 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Learned Magistrate had the jurisdiction to pass orders extending investigation and taking cognizance after the addition of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act

pp. 8-9

ii.2. Whether the proceedings should be quashed for failure to complete investigation within the statutory period of two/three years as per Section 167(5) of the CrPC (WB Amendment)

pp. 7-8

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 167(5)(ii) and (iii) of the CrPC as amended in West Bengal, which stipulates specific time frames (two to three years) for stopping investigations if not concluded within the period from the date of arrest

pp. 11-12

It relied on Durgesh Chandra Saha v. Bimal Chandra Saha, which held that Section 167(5) cannot be invoked after a chargesheet is filed

p. 15

Crucially, the court applied Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandate that offences under the Act must be tried exclusively by a Special Judge

pp. 16-17

Provisions in the judgment · 17 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 167 Section 262 Section 263 Section 264 Section 265 Section 326 Section 475 Section 482

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 409 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 13

04Reasoning

The court observed that the petitioner surrendered on June 11, 2006; therefore, the statutory period for investigation lapsed in June 2008 or 2009

p. 18

However, the court held that since the petitioner did not apply for discharge until after the chargesheet was filed and cognizance was taken, he lost the right to seek termination of investigation under Section 167(5)

pp. 15-16

Regarding jurisdiction, the court reasoned that once Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act were added on September 18, 2006, the CJM was legally divested of jurisdiction

pp. 17-18

Under the PC Act, only a Special Judge can try such cases or take cognizance. Consequently, the CJM’s orders extending time for investigation and taking cognizance were coram non judice—without any legal authority

p. 18

05Holding

The court refused to quash the FIR/proceedings but set aside and quashed all orders passed by the Learned Magistrate after September 18, 2006, for lack of jurisdiction

p. 18

pp. 18-19

LawLens.Calcutta High Court

Original Court PDF