- (1.) By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of a complaint pending against them before the Special Judge (Anti-Dacoity), Jhansi on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of that complaint. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 19-11-1983 by means of which they have been summoned on that complaint on the same ground i.e. the said order is without jurisdiction. The facts of this case may briefly be stated as under :- Ram Sahai, opposite party No. 2, filed a complaint on 5-10-1983 against the petitioners and Shanker, opposite party No.3, under various sections, including S.392 of the Penal Code in the Court of Munsif-Magistrate VIII, Jhansi which was registered there as Criminal Case No. 952 of 1983. After examining the said complainant and the witnesses under Ss. 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners and Shankar, opposite party No. 3, by an order dated 19-11-1983. On 7-11-1984, however, the case was transferred from the Court of Munsif-Magistrate VIII, Jhansi to the Court of Munsif-Magistrate VI, Jhansi where it was registered as Criminal Case No. 2230 of 1983. On the same day the Munsif-Magistrate transferred it to the Court of Special Judge (Decoity Affected Areas), Jhansi who has fixed 7-2-1985 for the appearance of the petitioners.
(2.) It is contended that the Special Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint against the petitioners because it was filed not before him but before the Magistrate. The Special Court (Anti-Dacoity), Jhansi could take cognizance on this complaint only if it was filed before it. It is not disputed that one of the offences under which the complaint has been filed in a scheduled offence. Therefore, the Special Court could have taken cognizance of the complaint only if it was filed before it as provided in S. 7 of the U. P. Dacoity Affected Areas Ordinance, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance).
(3.) After hearing the counsel for the petitioners, I find myself unable to agree with the above contention. S. 7 of the Ordinance reads as under:- "(1) A Special Court may take cognizance of any scheduled offence :-- (a) Upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) Upon a police report of such facts; (c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon its own knowledge that such offence has been committed ........... " It is no doubt true that the complaint the cognizance of which has been taken by the Special Judge was not filed before him. But clause (a) of S. 7 states that a Special Court may take cognizance of any scheduled offence "upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence." The word "receiving" in this clause is significant. This word leaves no room for doubt that the Special Judge could take cognizance of an offence on a complaint received by him even though not filed by the complainant himself. The word "receiving" in this clause makes the intention of the legislature in this regard very clear. The only condition necessary is that such complaint received by the Special Judge must contain "facts" which "constituted such offence" on which cognizance can be taken by him. In other words, if the Special Judge receives a complaint of "facts" which "constitute an offence", S. 7(a) empowers him to take cognizance of that "offence" irrespective of the source from where he received that complaint. In this clause it is nowhere mentioned that the Special Judge can take cognizance only upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute an offence "from the complainant" himself. If this would have been the intention of the legislature, it would have added the words "From the complainant" after the word "offence" in this clause. Therefore if the Special Judge has taken cognizance of the offence as disclosed by the facts alleged in the complaint received by him from the Court of Munsif-Magistrate VI, Jhansi, he has not acted beyond jurisdiction.;