Bhajahari Mondal v. The State of West Bengal

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India in Bhajahari Mondal v. The State of West Bengal addressed a significant issue of jurisdiction concerning the competence of a Special Judge under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 to try an offence under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was introduced through the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Act XLVI of 1952). The appellant, Bhajahari Mondal, had been prosecuted and convicted for attempting to bribe a juror in an ongoing trial. The controversy arose because the notification issued by the State of West Bengal allocated his trial to a Special Court for offences under Sections 161/116 IPC, which by then were rendered inapplicable after the amendment introducing Section 165A IPC. The Court meticulously examined legislative amendments, the procedural distribution of cases to Special Courts, and the scope of jurisdiction conferred by statutory notifications. It concluded that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction since the notification did not encompass the newly introduced offence under Section 165A IPC at the time of cognizance. The defect in jurisdiction could not be cured under Section 529(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as that provision applied solely to Magistrates and not to Special Judges acting under the special statute. The entire proceedings were declared void ab initio and the conviction was set aside.

Keywords: Special Court jurisdiction, Section 165A IPC, Bhajahari Mondal, West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 529 CrPC, defect of jurisdiction, Special Judge powers, notification defect, Criminal Law Amendment Act, Prevention of Corruption Act.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Bhajahari Mondal v. The State of West Bengal
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1956
iii) Judgement Date: 11th September 1958
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Justices J.L. Kapur and Jafer Imam
vi) Author: Justice J.L. Kapur
vii) Citation: 1959 AIR 493; 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 1276
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

  • West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949

  • Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 161, 116, 165A

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 529(e)

  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
    ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None
    x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Jurisdiction, Anti-Corruption Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case originated from allegations of bribery against Bhajahari Mondal during a jury trial of Istipada Ghosh and his son in Burdwan. Bhajahari Mondal allegedly offered a bribe to one of the jurors to secure a favourable verdict. The matter escalated as the police caught him red-handed, leading to his prosecution. The State invoked the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 to assign the trial to a Special Judge. However, legislative changes under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, which introduced Section 165A IPC, fundamentally altered the offence charged. This created a complex legal scenario concerning the validity of jurisdiction exercised by the Special Judge.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Bhajahari Mondal approached juror Baidya Nath Mukherjee and offered him illegal gratification to favourably influence the verdict in a trial against Istipada Ghosh and his son, pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Burdwan. The juror informed the police. A trap was laid on 6th September 1952, where Bhajahari Mondal was apprehended while offering a bribe of Rs. 40 in currency notes. The police registered an FIR for offences under Sections 161 and 116 IPC.

Subsequently, through a notification dated 27th November 1952, under Section 4(2) of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, the State Government distributed the case to the Burdwan Special Court for trial under Sections 161/116 IPC. However, prior to this, with effect from 28th July 1952, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 had inserted Section 165A IPC into the Penal Code, criminalizing abetment of bribery with an enhanced punishment.

Despite this legislative change, the notification continued to refer to the obsolete combination of Sections 161/116 IPC. The Special Judge took cognizance on 23rd December 1952, framed charges under Section 165A IPC on 10th February 1954, and convicted Bhajahari Mondal on 7th June 1954, sentencing him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment. The Calcutta High Court dismissed his appeal, upholding the conviction and reasoning that any jurisdictional defect was curable under Section 529(e) CrPC. Bhajahari Mondal then appealed to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the Special Judge had jurisdiction to try and convict Bhajahari Mondal under Section 165A IPC.

ii) Whether the defect of jurisdiction was curable under Section 529(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

iii) Whether the West Bengal notification was legally sufficient to empower the Special Judge to try an offence under the newly introduced Section 165A IPC.

iv) Whether Section 165A IPC could be deemed automatically included within the Schedule of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that

The notification issued by the State Government authorized the Special Court to try offences under Sections 161/116 IPC, which was inapplicable after Section 165A IPC came into force through the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952[5]. They argued that Section 165A IPC created a new offence distinct from mere abetment under Section 116 IPC, as it provided enhanced punishment and attracted additional legal provisions, such as those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

They contended that the State failed to issue a fresh notification allotting Bhajahari Mondal’s trial to the Special Court under Section 165A IPC after its inclusion through an amendment to the Schedule of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act in 1953.

The appellant also argued that since Special Judges derive jurisdiction solely from statutory notifications specifying both the accused and the offences, the absence of proper notification rendered the entire proceedings void ab initio. They emphasized that Section 529(e) CrPC applied only to Magistrates and not to Special Judges operating under special statutory jurisdiction.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that

The State argued that Section 165A IPC was merely an elaboration of abetment under Section 116 IPC and fell within the ambit of the offences originally specified in the Schedule of the West Bengal Act, 1949[5]. They submitted that the addition of Section 165A IPC merely strengthened existing provisions and should be read into the existing notification.

The State contended that any defect in the notification was procedural and curable under Section 529(e) CrPC, which allows for proceedings not to be set aside for jurisdictional defects if the act was done in good faith.

They argued that the Special Judge validly took cognizance of the case under Section 165A IPC and, thus, had full jurisdiction to conduct the trial.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949
ii) West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) (Amendment) Acts of 1952 and 1953
iii) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Act XLVI of 1952)
iv) Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  • Section 161 IPC – Public servant taking gratification

  • Section 116 IPC – Abetment of offences punishable with imprisonment

  • Section 165A IPC – Abetment of offences under Sections 161 and 165 IPC
    v) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898:

  • Section 529(e) – Irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings if done in good faith
    vi) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction as the notification empowered him only to try offences under Sections 161/116 IPC, which had ceased to exist due to the insertion of Section 165A IPC[5].

ii) The Court reasoned that Section 165A IPC created a new and distinct offence not previously contemplated in the original Schedule of the West Bengal Act, 1949, as it provided for enhanced punishment and attracted provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

iii) The failure to issue a fresh notification specifically allotting the offence under Section 165A IPC to the Special Court rendered the trial proceedings void ab initio.

iv) The defect could not be cured under Section 529(e) CrPC since that provision only applied to Magistrates, not Special Judges under the Special Courts Act.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court observed that for Special Courts established under special statutes, jurisdiction arises strictly through statutory notifications specifying both the accused and the offences. Any deviation from this requirement strikes at the root of jurisdiction.

ii) The Court also emphasized that subsequent inclusion of Section 165A IPC into the Schedule by the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1953 did not operate retrospectively to cure past jurisdictional defects.

c. GUIDELINES 

  • Special Courts derive jurisdiction strictly from statutory notifications under the special statutes.

  • Jurisdiction must be explicitly conferred for newly created offences under amended penal provisions.

  • Notifications must specifically mention the accused and the applicable statutory provisions.

  • General curative provisions like Section 529 CrPC cannot cure jurisdictional defects concerning Special Judges.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i) Bhajahari Mondal v. The State of West Bengal, 1959 AIR 493, 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 1276

b. Important Statutes Referred

i) West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 (W.B. Act XXI of 1949)
ii) West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) (Amendment) Acts, 1952 and 1953
iii) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Act XLVI of 1952)
iv) Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 161, 116, 165A
v) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: Section 529(e)
vi) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture