State of Mysore v. Fakrusab Babusab Karanandi

ORDER

After we delivered the judgment in this case, our attention was drawn to the fact that subsequent to the decision of the High Court, a fresh charge-sheet for the same offence was filed by the police against the respondent and in view of the amendment made in section 60, clause (b) by Mysore Act I of 1971, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and tried the respondent and ultimately as 1 i result of the trial, the respondent was convicted and sentenced to irnt·risonment and in fact by :the time the appeal came to be heard by us, ·he had already served out his sentence of imprisonment. In view of this fact, it is unnecessary to remand the case to the learned Judicial Magist.rate for taking cognizance of the offence. We accordingly direct ·that the last part of the final order made by us which com-mences with the words "and remand the case" be deleted.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1972. ·

Appeal by Special Leave from tbe Judgment and Order dated 14-6-1971 of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Revision Petition L-No. 229 of 1971.

N. Nettar, for tbe Appellant.

K. R. Nataraja, for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court. was delivered by · BHAGWATI, J.-This appeal by special leave raises a· short but interesting question of Jaw. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and briefly stated as follows :

On I st October, 1970 the police filed a chargesheet against the respondent in the court of tbe Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Badami, charging him with having cominitted an offence punishable under Section. 34 of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965. The learned Judicial Magistrate by an order dated 3rd October, 1970 refused to take cog-nizance '<1f the offence on tbis charge-sheet, since it was filed by tbe Police and not by an Excise official. The view taken by the learned Magistrate was that under Section 60 clause (b) as · amended by Mysore Qrdinance No. 4 of 1970 which represented tbe Jaw as it then stood, it was not competent to him to take cognizance of an offence punisb1ble under Section 34, except on the complaint or report of an Exc.'Se Officer and since tbe charge-'sheet in tbe present case was filed by: the police aud not-by an Excise Officer, he was precluded from. td'king cognizance of the offence. The learned Judicial Magistrate --V~~ this view directed that tbe. charge-sheet be returned to the police

and ordered release of tbe respondent. The State thereupon preferred J a ·Revision Application to tbe Sessions Court, Bijapur. The learned

Sessions Judge agreed with the view taken by the Judicial Ma_t!istrate and. _holding that the Judicial Magi·strate was right in refusing to take cognizance of tbe offence on tbe charge-sheet filed by tbe police, re-jected the Revision Application su=arily. This led to tbe filing of a Revision Application by tbe ·State before tbe High Court. The High Court too su=arily rejected tbe Revision Application and hence tbe State preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.

Now in order to appreciate the contention tbat has been raised on behalf of tbe State in -support of tbe appeal, it is ·necessary to notice the various change·s which Section 60 of the Principal Act went through from time to time during the relevant period. Section 60 clause (b) as it originally stood provided that no Magistrate shall take cognizance . of an offence punishable under auy Section of the Act other then Section 35 or 38 or 46 or 48 "except on hi~ own know-ledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of an Excise or Police Officer". But before the ch'!rge-sheet in the present case came to be filed by the Police, an amendment was made fa Section 60 clause (b) by Mysore Ordinance No. 4 of 1970 which came into force on 7th August 1970. Section 18 of this amending ordinance omitted the words "or police" in clause (b) of Section 60. The result was that cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 34 could not be taken by a Magistrate "except on his own knowledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of au excise officer". Section 60 (B) __ J_ was also added at the same time and by this new Section inter-alia offence under Section 34 was made cognizable arid the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with respect to cognizable offences were made applicable to such offence. It was on the basis of the amended clause (b) . Section 60 that the learned Judicial Magis-trate as well as the Sessions Judge held that cognizance of the offence under Section 34 charged against the respondent could not be taken, since the charge-sheet was filed by the police and not by an excise officer. The learned comisel appearing on behalf of the .State con-tended before us that even on the language of the amended clanse (b) of. Section 60 without the words "or police", it was competent to the Judicial Magistrate by reason of the enactment of Section 60(B) to take cognizance of the offence, but it is necessary for us to examine this contention since we find that before the Revision Application came to be heard by :the High Court, a further amendment was made in clause (b) of Section 60 by Mysore Act 1 of 1971 aud ,that res-tored the position which obtained prior to the amendment made by Mysore Ordinance No. 4 of 1979. Mysore Act No. 1 of 1971 was deemed to have come into force on 7th August 1970 and Soction 23 of this Act provided inler-alia that the amendment to Section 60 made by Mysore Ordinance No. 4 of 1971 shall be deemed never ta have been made and the provisions of Section 60 as they stood prior td· the said amendment shall be deemed to continue to be in force. The result of the enactment of this provision by Mysore Act 1 of 1971'\.. _. wa·s that the amendment made in Section 60 clause (b) by deleting the words "or police" by Mysore Ordinance 4 of 1970, was obliterated and wiped out with retrospective effect so that in the eye of the law it was never made at all. It is now settled law that when a legal~· fiction is enacted by the Legislatme, the Court should not allow its-~ imagination to boggle but must carry the legal fiction to its logical extent and give full effect in it. We must, therefore, proceed on the basis that the words "or police" were always there in clause (b) of Section 60, even at the time when the learned Judicial Magistrate made hi~ order dated 3rd October, 1970 refusing to take cognizance of the offence and returning the charge-sheet to the police. If these words were in clause (b) of Section 60 at that time, then obviously the learned Magistrate was in error in refusing to take cognizance of the complaint on the ground that the charge-sheet was not filed by an excise officer but by the police. That is the clear effect of the legal fiction enacted in Section 23 of My'sore Act 1 'of 1971 and that this would be so is amply supported by the decision of this Court in M. K. Venkatachalam l.T.O. and' Another v. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd.(') The High Court as. well as the Court of Sessions, were therefore, clearly in error in affirming the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate and it must be held that the charge-sheet was validly filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate by the police and tne Judicial Magistrate was entitled to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of such charge-sheet.

We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the orders made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sessions Judge and the High Court and remand the case to the Judicial Magistrate with a direction to him to deal with the charge-sheet filed by the police in aGcordance witb law in the light of the observations contained in thi's judgment.