State of Mysore v. F. B. Karanandi

**A** **B** #### **c** **D** E **F** 544 STATE OF MYSORE FAKRUSAB BABUSAB KARANANDI _December_ 17, 1976 _and_ _March_ 7, 1977 _v._ (P. N. BHAGWATI, A. C. GUPTA AND JASWANT SINGH, .IJ.j _Cognizance_ _of_ _an offence under_ _s._ 60(b) _of the Mysore Excise Act,_ 1965 _for_ _an offence under_ _s._ 34 _thereof-Mysore_ _Ordinance No._ 4 _of_ 1970 _ame11di11rt_ _s._ 60(b) _a11d_ _introducing a_ _news._ _60B; Mysore_ _Amendment_ _Act No._ 1 _o.f_ 1971_Effect_ _of-Competency_ _of the judicial magi5trare_ _ill_ _returning the complaint_ _fried_ _by_ _a<_ _Police Officer_ _<1J1d_ _refw;ing to take cogniza11ce_ _of the offence under_ _s._ _60(b)_ _as amended by_ _Mysore Ordinance_ 4 _of_ 1970 _which represented the law as_ _it_ _that_ _stood._ The Mysore Ordinance 4 of 1970 which came mto effect from 7th August 1970 omitted the words "or police" in s. 60(b) of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965 which provided for taking of cognizance by the Magistrate "on his own knowledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of an excise or police officer". It also inserted a new s. 60B whereby offence under s. 34 was made cognizable and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 with respect to cogniz-, able offences made applicable to such offence. The earlier position which obtained prior to the said Ordinance was restored by the Mysore Amendment Act No. 1 of 1971 which received the President's assent on 20th .January 1971 but which was deemed to have come into force on 7th August 1970. Section 23 of the 1971 Act provided that the amendment to s. 60 made by the Ordinance of 1970 shall be deemed never to have been made and the provisions of s. _60_ as they stood prior to the said amendment shall be deemed to continue to be in force. **G** The judicial Magistrate, Badami, on a complaint filed by a police officer refused to take cognizance of an offence for the illegal possession of 4! tolas of ganja under section 34 of the Mysore Excise Act 1965 in view of the provisions if s. 60(b) ibid which represented the law as it then stood. The revision application before the Sessions Court was dismissed on 15-1-1971. A further revision filed before the High Court on 14-6-1971 was also dismissed _in limine._ However after the dismissal of the revision by the High Court. on a fresh complr.int filed by the police in respect of the same offence as per the amending Act I of 1971. the judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, convicted the accused and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months und also to pay ~ a fine of Rs. 100/-. Notwithstanding the conviction the State pressed its appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the revision. Allowing the appeal, the Gour!, HELD : ( 1) The High Court as well as the .court of. Session~ were cleady in error in affirming the order made by the learnea1uaicia! Magistrate. [547A1 (2) The charge sheet was validly filed before ~he learned judici~l Magistrate by the Police and the Judicial Magistrate was entitled to take cogmzance of the offence on the basis of such charge sheet. [547 A-Bl ( 3) The result of the enactment of s. 23 by Mysore Act I of .~ 971 w:is,~hat the amendment made in s. _60_ clause (b) by deletmg the words. or police .by Mysore Ordinance No. 4 of 1970 as oblitarated and wiped out with retrospective effect so that in the eye of the law it was never made at all. [546F] **H** ( 4) It is now well-settled law that when a legal fiction is enacted by the Legis-· lature the court should not allow its imagination to boggle but must carry the lei:tal fiction to its 1 ogical extent and give full effect to it. The clear e~ect ### _t_ **the** legal fiction enacted in s. 23 of Mysore Act No. **1** of 1971 was t at 1 e MYSORE V. F. B. KARANANDI _(Bhagwati,_ J.) 545 words "or police" were always there in cl. (b) of s. 60 even at the time when - A **the** **charge sheet** **was** **presented before the learned Magistrate and** **if** **that be so.** **the learned 1Iagistrate** **was** **in** **error** **in** **refusing to take cognizance** **of** **the com-** **plaint on the ground that the charge** **shiet was not filed** **by** **an excise officer but** by the police. [546G·H, 547A] _**M.**_ _**K.**_ _**Venkatachalam l.T.O.**_ _**&**_ _**Anr.**_ **v.** _**BOmbay,**_ _**Dyeing & ].,ffg. Co. Ltd.**_ _:_ (1959) S.C.R. 703, applied. ' 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 cognizance '<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 ##,. . 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 B ##### c **D** E F **G** **H** 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 2 S.C.R. 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 knowledge 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 Magistrate 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 contended 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- • A B ##### c D E F 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 ##### • G H 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'\.. _. 1 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 MYSORE _v._ F. B. j\ARANANDI _(Bhagwati,_ _J.)_ 547 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. ORDER A B ##### c 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, D 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 E direct ·that the last part of the final order made by us which commences with the words "and remand the case" be deleted. S.R. _Appeal allowed ._ . l (I) [1959] S.C.R. 703.