Updated: Jan, 25 2017

Section 4 - Cases triable by special Judges.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974 .), or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub- section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by special Judges only.

(2) Every offence specified in sub- section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by the special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government.

(3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974 .), be charged at the same trial.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974 .), a special Judge shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day- to- day basis. 

 

 

4. विशेष न्यायाधीशो द्वारा विचारण के प्रकरण - 

(1) दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का सं.2) में या तत्समय प्रवृत्त किसी अन्य विधि में किसी बात के होते हुए भी धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) में विनिर्दिष्ट प्रकरणों का विचारण विशेष न्यायाधीशों द्वारा ही किया जाएगा ।

(2) धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) में विनिर्दिष्ट प्रत्येक अपराध का विचारण उस क्षेत्र के लिए नियुक्त या उस अपराध के विचारण के लिए नियुक्त या यथास्थिति विशेष न्यायाधीश द्वारा किया जावेगा या उस क्षेत्र में यदि एक से अधिक न्यायाधीश है, तो उस न्यायाधीश द्वारा किया जाएगा जैसा कि केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित विनिर्दिष्ट करे।

(3) किसी मामले के विचारण के दौरान, विशेष न्यायाधीश द्वारा धारा 3 में विनिर्दिष्ट अपराधों के अतिरिक्त ऐसे अपराधों की सुनवाई भी कर सकेगा जो दंड प्रकिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का सं.2) के अधीन उस अभियुक्त पर उस विचारण के साथ अधिरोपित किए जा सकते हैं।

(4) दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का सं. 2) में किसी बात के होते हुए भी विशेष न्यायाधीश अपराध का विचारण दिन-प्रतिदिन के आधार पर करेगा ।

 

COMMENTARY AND CASE LAWS

 

  1. Sole public servant died before framing charge under PC Act,  the Special Judge cannot not  frame  any  charge  against non-public  servants[M/S HCL INFOSYSTEM LTD Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SC:August 09 , 2016]-   Supreme Court has held that " The charge against the sole public servant under the PC Act could also not be framed since he died on 18-2-2005. The Special Judge also could not frame any charge against non-public servants. As already indicated, under sub-section (3) of Section 4, the Special Judge could try non-PC offences only when “trying any case” relating to PC offences. In the instant case, no PC offence has been committed by any of the non-public servants so as to fall under Section 3(1) of the PC Act. Consequently, there was no occasion for the Special Judge to try any case relating to the offences under the PC Act against the appellant. The trying of any case under the PC Act against a public servant or a non-public servant, as already indicated, is a sine qua non for exercising powers under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act. In the instant case, since no PC offence has been committed by any of the non-public servants and no charges have been framed against the public servant, while he was alive, the Special Judge had no occasion to try any case against any of them under the PC Act, since no charge has been framed prior to the death of the public servant. The jurisdictional fact, as already discussed above, does not exist so far as this appeal is concerned, so as to exercise jurisdiction by the Special Judge to deal with non-PC offences."

  2. Trying a case by a Special Judge under Section 3(1) is a sine-qua-non for exercising jurisdiction by the Special Judge for trying any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 3 [State through CBI New Delhi Vs Jitender Kumar Singh, SC: Feb 05, 2014]- Supreme Court has held that " The Special Judge appointed under Section 3(1) could exercise the powers under sub-section (3) to Section 4 to try non-PC offence. Therefore, trying a case by a Special Judge under Section 3(1) is a sine-qua-non for exercising jurisdiction by the Special Judge for trying any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 3. “Trying any case” under Section 3(1) is, therefore, a jurisdictional fact for the Special Judge to exercise powers to try any offence other than an offence specified in Section 3."

  3. A Special Judge  not  to try non-PC offences totally unconnected with any PC offences [ State through CBI New Delhi Vs Jitender Kumar Singh, SC: Feb 05, 2014]- Supreme Court has held that " A Special Judge exercising powers under the PC Act is not expected to try non-PC offences totally unconnected with any PC offences under Section 3(1) of the PC Act and in the event of a Special Judge not trying any offence under Section 3(1) of the PC Act, the question of the Special Judge trying non-PC offences does not arise. As already indicated, trying of a PC offence is a jurisdictional fact to exercise the powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 4. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge, as such, has not been divested, but the exercise of jurisdiction, depends upon the jurisdictional fact of trying a PC offence. We are, therefore, concerned with the exercise of jurisdiction and not the existence of jurisdiction of the Special Judge." 

                              ​Supreme Court has further held that " The trying of any case under the PC Act against a public servant or a non-public servant, as already indicated, is a sine-qua-non for exercising powers under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of PC Act. In the instant case, since no PC offence has been committed by any of the non- public servants and no charges have been framed against the public servant, while he was alive, the Special Judge had no occasion to try any case against any of them under the PC Act, since no charge has been framed prior to the death of the public servant. The jurisdictional fact, as already discussed above, does not exist so far as this appeal is concerned, so as to exercise jurisdiction by the Special Judge to deal with non-PC offences."
  4. After framing the charge for PC and non-PC offences , the sole public servant dies. Special Judge can proceed against the non-public servant [ State through CBI New Delhi Vs Jitender Kumar Singh, SC: Feb 05, 2014]- Supreme Court has held that " The Special Judge after framing the charge for PC and non-PC offences posted the case for examination of prosecution witnesses, thereafter the sole public servant died on 2.6.2003. Before that, the Special Judge, in the instant case, has also exercised his powers under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act and hence cannot be divested with the jurisdiction to proceed against the non-public servant, even if the sole public servant dies after framing of the charges. On death, the charge against the public servant alone abates and since the special Judge has already exercised his jurisdiction under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PC Act, that jurisdiction cannot be divested due to the death of the sole public servant."