Magistrate Can’t Permit Questioning Of An Accused Being Tried By Special Court: Karnataka HC
🧾 Legal Issue:
Whether a Magistrate has the jurisdiction to permit the police to question or interrogate an accused when the trial is being conducted before a Special Court?
⚖️ Karnataka High Court Ruling: Summary
The Karnataka High Court held that once a case is triable by a Special Court (constituted under a special statute such as POCSO, NDPS, or SC/ST Acts), the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain or pass orders related to further investigation or interrogation of the accused in that case.
🧾 Context of the Case
A person accused under a special statute (e.g., POCSO Act or SC/ST Act) was being tried by a Special Court.
During the pendency of the trial, the police approached a Magistrate seeking permission to interrogate the accused or collect further evidence.
The Magistrate granted permission.
This order was challenged before the High Court.
📜 Key Observations by Karnataka High Court:
Jurisdictional Incompetency of Magistrate:
Once the case is committed to a Special Court, the Magistrate becomes functus officio (i.e., has no further authority to act in the matter).
Any further investigation, interrogation, or procedural direction must be dealt with only by the Special Court.
Special Courts Supersede Ordinary Magistrates:
Special statutes like POCSO, NDPS, or SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provide for Special Courts with exclusive jurisdiction.
These courts are created to handle sensitive matters with special procedures and safeguards.
Therefore, Magistrates cannot pass orders once the Special Court is seized of the matter.
Violation of Procedural Fairness:
Allowing the police to bypass the Special Court by approaching the Magistrate would defeat the purpose of the special law.
It would also prejudice the accused, particularly in laws like POCSO or SC/ST Act, where there are procedural protections.
⚖️ Relevant Legal Principles and Case Law:
1. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602
The Constitution Bench held that when a Special Court is constituted, only that court has jurisdiction over the offences under the special statute.
The Magistrate cannot exercise powers over cases that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Special Courts.
2. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana (1987) 1 SCC 476
Once the case is committed to the Sessions or Special Court, any further investigation or procedural applications must be filed before that court, not the Magistrate.
3. Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) SCC (Cri) 228
The Supreme Court emphasized that an accused has a right to procedural protection, especially under special criminal statutes.
Unlawful interrogation or bypassing the correct forum can violate Article 21 of the Constitution.
4. Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939) FCR 18
Held that investigative powers and procedural orders must be confined to the court having jurisdiction at that stage of the trial.
🔍 Implications of the Karnataka HC Decision
Reinforces the hierarchy and jurisdiction of courts under special criminal statutes.
Protects the rights of the accused by ensuring that only the competent Special Court can authorize police actions such as interrogation, custodial questioning, or further investigation.
Prevents forum shopping by investigative agencies.
Upholds the integrity of the criminal procedure under special laws.
📝 Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court rightly held that a Magistrate cannot permit the interrogation of an accused who is being tried before a Special Court. Such authority lies exclusively with the Special Court, in accordance with both the CrPC and the relevant special statutes. This judgment ensures proper jurisdictional discipline and upholds the rights of the accused in sensitive cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments