Supreme Court explains special courts' powers to take cognizance of offences [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court recently held that a special court (which is a court of sessions) cannot take cognizance of an offence without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate under Section 209 Code of Criminal Procedure [Pradeep S Wodeyar v State of Karnataka]..However, even if an order taking cognizance is irregular, it would not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which provides that an appellate court cannot reverse a finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction unless it has led to a failure of justice. "The objective of Section 465 is to prevent the delay in the commencement and completion of trial. Section 465 CrPC is applicable to interlocutory orders such as an order taking cognizance and summons order as well. Therefore, even if the order taking cognizance is irregular, it would not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465 CrPC," the Court ruled.The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna..The criminal appeals were moved by the Managing Director and Director of Canara Overseas Limited which was engaged in the business of exporting iron ore. However, it was alleged that the transportation and export of iron ore was carried out in the absence of permits from the Forest Department and the Department of Mines and Geology.First Information Reports were registered against the appellants in 2014 and 2015 respectively.Subsequently, the Additional City Civil Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act at Bengaluru City took cognizance after perusing the final report. A direction was also issued for the registration of the case against the accused persons and for issuance of summons.In March 2017, the appellants moved the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them for offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent) and 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) read with Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code as well as relevant provisions of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. The High Court dismissed the petitions prompting them to approach the Supreme Court in appeal..The appellants were represented by Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave and Pravin H Parekh and advocate Nikhil Goel appeared for the respondent State of Karnataka..The primary issue for consideration before the top court was regarding the special court's power to take cognizance.The counsel for the appellants contended that the special court (which is a sessions court) is not empowered to take cognizance of offences without the case being committed to it, in view of Section 193 of CrPC. Since the Magistrate did not commit the case to the special court before it took cognizance of the offences in the instant case, it was argued that the order taking cognizance is vitiated. .The Court referred to its previous decisions interpreting Section 193 (cognizance of offences by courts of sessions) CrPC. The decision of a two judge Bench in Gangula Ashok v. State of AP stated that there is neither express provision by which the special court can take cognizance of the offence without committal nor can this be inferred.The decision in Gangula Ashok was distinguished by a three judge bench in Rattiram v State of Madhya Pradesh based on the stage of trial. .The Court, in the instant case, opined that this differentiation based on the stage of trial must be read with reference to Section 465(2) CrPC. The general principle which is embodied in Section 465 CrPC is that a finding or order is not reversible due to irregularities unless a 'failure of justice‘ is proved. Section 465(2) provides that while determining whether there has been a failure of justice, the appellate court shall have regard to whether the objection regarding the irregularity could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceeding.On this point, the Court said that "while determining if there was a failure of justice, the Courts ought to address it with reference to the stage of challenge, the seriousness of the offence and the apparent intention to prolong proceedings, among others"In the instant case, the cognizance order was challenged by the appellants two years later and no reason was given to explain the inordinate delay..Further, the Court also referred to the settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. In the instant, the Court found from the order of the special judge that he had considered all the relevant material relating to the case before taking cognizance.'Therefore, there was no failure of justice‘ under Section 465 CrPC, the Court concluded.The Court also opined that offences under the MMDR Act are environmental crimes and affect society at large."Moreover, in view of the diminished role of the committal court under Section 209 of the Code of 1973 as compared to the role of the committal court under the erstwhile Code of 1898, the gradation of irregularity in a cognizance order made in Sections 460 and 461 and the seriousness of the offence, no failure of justice has been demonstrated", the Court found..The Court thus summarised its findings as follows: - The special court does not have, in the absence of a specific provision to that effect, the power to take cognizance of an offence under the MMDR Act without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate under Section 209 CrPC. The order of the Special Judge dated 30 December 2015 taking cognizance is therefore irregular; - The objective of Section 465 is to prevent the delay in the commencement and completion of trial. Section 465 CrPC is applicable to interlocutory orders such as an order taking cognizance and summons order as well. Therefore, even if the order taking cognizance is irregular, it would not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465 CrPC; - The decision in Gangula Ashok was distinguished in Rattiram based on the stage of trial. This differentiation based on the stage of trial must be read with reference to Section 465(2) CrPC. Section 465(2) does not indicate that it only covers challenges to pre-trial orders after the conclusion of the trial. The cardinal principle that guides Section 465(2) CrPC is that the challenge to an irregular order must be urged at the earliest. While determining if there was a failure of justice, the Courts ought to address it with reference to the stage of challenge, the seriousness of the offence and the apparent intention to prolong proceedings, among others;- In the instant case, the cognizance order was challenged by the appellant two years after cognizance was taken. No reason was given to explain the inordinate delay. Moreover, in view of the diminished role of the committal court under Section 209 of the Code of 1973 as compared to the role of the committal court under the erstwhile Code of 1898, the gradation of irregularity in a cognizance order made in Sections 460 and 461 and the seriousness of the offence, no failure of justice has been demonstrated; - It is a settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. However, the cognizance order indicates that the special judge has perused all the relevant material relating to the case before cognizance was taken. The change in the form of the order would not alter its effect. Therefore, no failure of justice‘ under Section 465 CrPC is proved. This irregularity would thus not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465 CrPC;- The special court has the power to take cognizance of offences under MMDR Act and conduct a joint trial with other offences if permissible under Section 220 CrPC. There is no express provision in the MMDR Act which indicates that Section 220 CrPC does not apply to proceedings under the MMDR Act;- Section 30B of the MMDR Act does not impliedly repeal Section 220 CrPC. Both the provisions can be read harmoniously and such an interpretation furthers justice and prevents hardship since it prevents a multiplicity of proceedings;- Since cognisance was taken by the special judge based on a police report and not a private complaint, it is not obligatory for the special judge to issue a fully reasoned order if it otherwise appears that the special judge has applied his mind to the material;.With regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court found that there was prima facie evidence against the appellants to be arraigned as accused for trial.Finding no merit in the appeals, the Court dismissed the same..[Read Judgment]