LAWS(SC)-1997-1-106

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. SUBODH KUMAR DUTTA

Decided On January 17, 1997
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Appellant
V/S
SUBODH KUMAR DUTTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) On the basis of an FIR, registered on 28-11-1987 by the CBI on the complaint of Subodh Chandra De, a trap was laid by the officers of the CBI on 30-11-1987 and respondent No. 1 Shri Subodh Kumar Dutta was allegedly caught accepting a bribe of Rs. 700/-. The CBI filed a charge sheet against respondent No. 1 for an offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on 11-2-1988, after completion of the investigation. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Special Judge under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 on 9-7-1988.

(3.) It is an admitted case of the parties that the special Court which took cognizance of the offence had been consituted under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 and not under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, After cognizance had been taken by the learned Special Judge, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 came to be repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with effect from 9-9-1988. Respondent No. 1 thereupon filed a criminal revision petition in the High Court under Sections 401/482, Cr. P.C., seeking quashing of the proceedings in the case pending against him before the Special Court in which the principal ground raised was the violation of the fundamental right of the accused to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. During the arguments, it appears the High Court also permitted respondent No. 1 to raise a plea that the Special Court trying the bribe case had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as that Court had not been constituted pursuant to Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which had repealed the 1947 Act. The learned Single Judge appears to have been impressed with this submission made on behalf of respondent No. 1. It appears that none appeared for the State before the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the petition.