minal Appeal Nos
1091 1 1 of 1977
From the Judgment and Order dated 28 5 1975 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision Nos 304 371 and 31875 respectively
AP Chatterjee G C Chatterjee and Mrs Mukti Moitra for the Appellants in all the appeals
AK Sen Miss Uma Bannerjee and section Swarup for Respondent in Crl
A No 6 1 1 of 1 9 7 7
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI J
These appeals by certificate are from the common judgment of the Calcutta High Court of 28th May 1975 disposing of three Criminal Misc
Revisions Nos 304 318 and 371 of 1975
There is a common question of law and will be disposed of by this judgment
Briefly the facts are as follows A complaint was made against the accused by Shri J F C Mc
Mohan Dock Manager Calcutta Port Commissioners to the South Port Police Station alleging offences under Sections 120 B420379 466468471
IPC against several accused including the respondents who happened to be public servants at the material time
The State Government issued a Notification No 3165 J on 8 4 1970 under Section 4 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Special Courts Act hereinafter referred to as the Act allotting the said case for trial to the Third Additional Special Court Calcutta constituted under the provisions of the said Act for trial of the offences mentioned in the schedule to that Act
There is no dispute about the particular order of allotment of the case to the Special Court under the said Act
Following the Notification of April 8 1970 the State of West Bengal through Ranajit Roy Sub Inspector of Police filed a complaint before the Third Additional Special Court Calcutta on 11 9 1970 detailing all the allegations against the accused and indicating the material facts that transpired in the course of the investigation of the case
The Special Court Judge after perusal of the complaint and hearing the Public Prosecutor took cognizance of the case under Sections 409109 and 40934 IPC which are offences mentioned in the schedule of the 384 Act
The learned Judge thereupon issued processes against the respondent and other accused
In due course trial commenced
 The prosecution after examining 70 witnesses closed its case on May 2 1974
The Court framed charges against four accused including the respondent and discharged the remaining two accused by a lengthy order with
reasons on 26 2 1975
Charges were framed under various sections including Sections 409  420 read with 120 B IPC The respondent moved the Calcutta High Court in revision for quashing the trial on March 25 1975
The High Court allowed the Petition on 28th of May 1975 and granted certificate to appeal to this Court under Article 1341 c of the Constitution on March 26 1976
Hence these appeals
The High Court accepted the contention of the respondent that no legal and valid cognizance of the offence war taken by the learned Judge
Special Court and therefore the entire proceedings became vitiated and hence were quashed
The High Court in disposing of the matter in this way followed two earlier Division Bench decisions of the said Court in Sudhir Chandra Bhattacharjee vs The State Criminal Appeals Nos 23 to 26 of 1961 decided on 29th March 1967 and Shyama Saran Das Gupta vs The State decided on 11th April 1975
The question that falls for decision in these appeals relates to the cognizance of the offence by the Special Judge under the Act
As the preamble shows the Act provides for the more speedy trial and more effective punishment of certain offence specified in the schedule thereto
Section 41 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or in any other law the offences specified in the schedule shall be triable by Special Courts only  Provided that when trying any case a Special Court may also try any offence other than an offence specified in the schedule with which the accused may under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be charged with the same trial
There is however no dispute that the offences charged are exclusively triable by the Special Court
Section 5 of the Act which is material for our purpose may be read A Special Court may take cognizance of offence in the manner laid down in clauses a  b of subsection 1 of Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1899 without the accused being committed to his Court for trial and its trying the accused persons shall follow the procedure proscribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates instituted otherwise than on a police report
 This Section underwent some changes by two amendments in 1956 and  1960
Prior to theamendments Section 51 did not contain the words in the mannerlaid down in clauses a  b of subsection 1 of the Code of Procedure 1898 and the words instituted otherwise than on a police report
 We are not concerned in these appeals with the amendment of 1956 by which the words instituted otherwise man an a police report were inserted
385 It may be of interest to note that in a case under the unamended Section before the Special Court this Court had to deal with the question of cognizance canvassed before it in Ajit Kumar Palit vs State of West Bengal1
This Court held on the terms of the provisions of the unamended section 51 of the Act as follows  The word cognizance has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law or procedure
It merely means become aware of and when used with reference to a Court or Judge to take notice of judicially
It was stated in Gopal Marwari vs Emperor2 by the learned Judges of the Patna High Court in a passage quoted with approval by this Court in R R Chari vs State of Uttar Pradesh s that the word cognizance  was used in the Code to indicate the point when the Magistrate or Judge
takes judicial notice of an offence and that it was a word of indefinite import and is not perhaps always used in exactly the same sense
As observed in Emperor vs Sourindra Mohan Chuckerbutty  4 taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence 
It appears to us therefore that as soon as a special judge receives the orders of allotment of the case passed by the State Government it becomes vested with jurisdiction to try the case and when it receives the record from the Government it can apply its mind and issue notice to the accused and thus start the trial of the proceedings assigned to it by the State Government
 The above decision of this Court could have concluded the matter but it is pointed out by Mr A K Sen appearing on behalf of the respondent that in view of the amendment of Section 51 of the Act by the West Bengal Act XXIV of 1960 introducing the words in the manner laid down in clauses a and b of subsection 1 of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 the legal position has completely changed
He submits that it is now obligatory for the Special Judge to examine the complainant under Section 200 Cr
PC prior to taking cognizance of the offence
Since in the present case proceeds the argument of Mr Sen the Special Judge took cognizance merely on the complaint of the Sub Inspector of Police without proceeding in accordance with Section 200 Cr
PC the entire proceedings are vitiated
We are unable to accede to the above submission of Mr Sen
It is true that the amendment has introduced the manner of taking cognizance in accordance with Section 1901 a  b Cr
PC appearing in Chapter XV of the Criminal Procedure Code 1 898 but the legislature in this amendment
at the same time has advisedly omitted to include 1 1963 Supp
1 SCR 953 at 965 966
2 AIR 1943 Pat
3   320
4 Cal
412 416
386 Section 200 Cr
PC and the other provisions of the next Chapter which is Chapter XVI dealing with complaints to Magistrates
It is clear that under Section 42 of the Act the allotment by the State Government to the Special Judge of a case involving of scheduled offences vests the necessary jurisdiction ill the Special Judge to proceed to trial and is therefore equivalent to that Court s taking cognizance of the offence See Ajit Kumar Palit s case Supra
Because of the amendment of Section 5 2 in 1960 it may be now open to the Special Judge to apply his judicial mind to the complaint apart from allotment of the case in order to come to a decision as to whether he is satisfied on the materials laid before him at that stage to take cognizance of the offence and proceed to trial If he chooses to examine the complainant or any witnesses before issuing process against any accused there is nothing in law to prevent him from doing so
If he doe not do so and is satisfied on perusal of the complaint after allotment of the case by the Government that an offence has been disclosed against definite persons no valid objection could be taken against his taking cognizance on the written complaint without complying with the provision of Section 200Cr
PC No grievance can be made then that the Special Judge has not examined the complainant under Section 200 Cr
PC prior to issuing of process
Section 200 Cr
PC in terms comes into play after taking cognizance of an offence by a Magistrate See Gopal Das Sindhi and others vs State of Assam and another1
There is therefore no merit in the submission that taking cognizance of the offence in this case is invalid for which the whole trial is vitiated
The words in the manner laid down in clauses a and b of Subsection 1 of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 do not automatically introduce the provisions of Section 200 Cr
PC of Chapter XVI nor do the above words in Section 5 2 of the Act mandatorily compel the Special Judge to resort to the provisions of Chapter XVI
Apart from this Chapter XVI in terms refers to complaints to Magistrates and thereby excludes Special Judges who are to be guided by the special provisions of the special Act in the matters provided therein
There is nothing in Section 51 of the Act even after the amendment in 1960 to compel the Special Judge to comply with the provisions of Section 200 Cr
The objection of the respondents to the trial is on the score of the invalidity of the cognizance taken by the Special Judge on perusal of the written complaint after allotment of the case by the Government for the sole reason that the complainant had not been examined under Section 200 Cr
PC prior to issuing of process
The objection is clearly untenable for the reasons given above
The appeals are therefore allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside
Since the case is an old one trial before the Special Judge shall be expedited
SR 1 AIR 1961 SC 986988  989
Appeals allowed


Summary:
A criminal case arising out of a complaint made against the accused including the respondents who happened to be public servants at the material time for the alleged offences section 120 B379466468471 IPC was allotted by the State Government through a notification o 3165 J dt 8 4 70 to the Third Additional Special Court Calcutta constituted under the provisions of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Special Courts Act
Following the notification the appellant State through Ranjit Roy Sub Inspector of Police filed a complaint before the Special Court on 11 9 70 detailing all the allegations against the accused and including the material facts that transpired in the course of the investigation of the case
The Special Court Judge after perusal of the complaint and hearing the Public Prosecutor took cognizance of the case section 409109 and 40934 IPC which are offences mentioned in the Schedule of the Act and issued processes to the accused
In the trial after examining 70 witnesses the prosecution closed its case on May 2 1974
The court framed charges against four accused including the respondents and discharged the remaining two accused by its order dated 26 2 1975
Charges were framed under various sections including SS 409 and 420 read with section 120 B IPC The revision petitions moved by the respondents for quashing the trial on March 25 1975 were accepted by the Calcutta High Court following its earlier decisions dated 29 3 1967 and 11 4 1975
The High Court held that no legal and valid cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Judge Special Court and therefore
the entire proceedings became vitiated
Allowing the appeal by certificate the Court
HELD  1 It is not obligatory for the Special Judge to examine complainant under section 200 Cr P C
Under section 42 of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Special Courts Act the allotment by the State Government to the Special Judge of a case involving of scheduled offences vests the neces sary jurisdiction in the Special Judge to proceed to trial and is therefore equivalent to that courts  taking cognizance of the offence
385 G 386 A B Ajit Kumar Palit vs State of West Bengal 1963 Supp
1 SCR 953  965 966 followed
2Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code in terms comes into play after taking cognizance of an offence by a Magistrate
386 D Gopal Das Sindhi  Ors
vs State of Assam  Anr
AIR 1961 SC 986 988 and 989 referred to
3There is nothing in section 51 of the Act even after the amendment in 1960 to compel the Special Judge to comply with the provisions of section 200 Cr
The words in the manner laid down in clauses a and b of sub section
1 of section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 do not automatically introduce the provisions of section 200 Cr P C of Chapter XVI nor do the above words in section 52 of the Act mandatorily compel the Special Judge to resort to the provisions of Chapter XVI
The legislature in the above amendment has advisedly omitted to include section 200 Cr P C and the other provisions in Chapter XVI of the Criminal Procedure Code
385 H 386 A E F 4Because of the amendment of section 52 in 1960 it may now be open to the Special Judge to apply his judicial mind to the complaint apart from 383 allotment of the case in order to come to a decision as to whether he is satisfied on the materials laid before him at that stage to take cognizance of the offence and proceed to trial
If he chooses to examine the complainant or any witness before issuing process against any accused there is nothing in law to prevent him from doing so
If he does not do so and is satisfied on perusal of the complaint after allotment of the case by the Government that an offence has been disclosed against definite persons no valid objection could be taken against his taking cognizance on the written complaint without complying with the provisions of section 200 Criminal Procedure Code
No grievance can be made then that the Special Judge has not examined the complainant under section 200 Cr P C period to issuing of process
386 B D Sudhir Chandra Bhattacharjee vs The State Crl
Appeals Nos 23 26 of 1961 decided on 29th March 1967 Calcutta and Shyama Saran Das Gupta vs The State decided on 11th April 1975 Calcutta over ruled