In a significant legal battle, the Supreme Court of India provided clarity on the jurisdictional boundaries concerning the Assam Rifles and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case involved an issue of whether the General Assam Rifles Court had the authority to try offences under the PC Act against its members. This ruling has far-reaching implications for governance and security within the Assam Rifles. Let’s delve into the details of this landmark judgment.
Facts
- The 1st Respondent was working as Subedar (Building and Road) and the 2nd Respondent was a Naib Subedar (Building and Road) in Headquarter-6 Sector, Assam Rifles, Kamrup, Assam.
- A charge-sheet was issued against the Respondents under Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with an alternate charge under Section 49 of the 2006 Act.
- During the Court of Enquiry and Summary of Evidence, the Respondents were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the complainants of the case.
- A sting operation conducted by a contractor alleged corruption in the Assam Rifles, leading to a Court of Inquiry ordered by Headquarters, IGAR (East) by an order dated 29.09.2014.
- The Respondents raised preliminary objections before the GARC, claiming the composition of the GARC was in violation of Section 90 of the 2006 Act and that the GARC cannot try a case punishable under the PC Act.
- The GARC rejected the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents on 09.01.2017.
- The General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) was convened on 10.11.2016.
- High Court declared that the GARC cannot proceed to adjudicate the case against the Respondents under the PC Act.
- Legislature did not declare GARC as a Court of special Judge under the PC Act.
- Division Bench dismissed the appeal and declared that GARC has no jurisdiction to try an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act.
- PC Act jurisdiction to be with a Court of a Special Judge appointed under the PC Act.
- High Court opinion states that only a special Judge appointed under the PC Act has jurisdiction to try offences punishable under the PC Act.
- High Court’s view is that Courts or other ‘Authorities’ mentioned in Section 25 are not affected by the PC Act.
- 2006 Act is not included in Section 25(1) of the PC Act, so ‘members of the force’ to be governed by the PC Act.
- GARC lacks jurisdiction to try an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, only Special Court under the PC Act can try such offences.
- High Court held that an offence triable by a criminal court falls within GARC’s jurisdiction based on definitions in the 2006 Act.
- Section 25(2) of the PC Act specifies that the Court of a special Judge is considered a Court of ordinary criminal justice for the purpose of laws listed in Section 25(1) of the PC Act.
- Division Bench upheld the judgment of the Single Judge stating that offences punishable under the PC Act are triable only by a special Judge as per Section 4 of the PC Act.
- Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition declaring that GARC cannot try offences punishable under the PC Act involving individuals governed by the 2006 Act.
- Appeal against Single Judge’s judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Also Read: Supreme Court Ruling on Dowry Harassment and Suicide Case
Arguments
- The petitioner relied on Section 2 (e) of the 2006 Act to define a ‘civil offence’ as one triable by a criminal court.
- He argued that the 2006 Act falls within the scope of Section 25 of the PC Act, based on S.R.O. 318 issued under the Army Act, 1950.
- Referring to Section 11 of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941, he mentioned that Assam Rifles members are considered part of the Indian Army for certain purposes.
- It was noted that there is no exclusion of the GARC’s jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act.
- S.R.O. 318 made provisions of the Army Act applicable to all units of the Armed Forces, except those listed in the Schedule.
- The Additional Solicitor General highlighted Sections 55 and 56 of the 2006 Act, stating that civil offences not exempted under Section 56 shall be tried by the GARC.
- He argued that both the GARC and the Special Judge under the PC Act have jurisdiction to try and penalize individuals for PC Act offences.
- Mr. Dushyant Parashar, counsel for the Respondent, supported the High Court judgment.
- He argued that Section 25 of the PC Act does not apply to the facts of this case.
- The 2006 Act is not mentioned in Section 25, so no exemption can be claimed from the PC Act.
- He stated that only a Special Judge under the PC Act can try an offence under the said Act.
Also Read: Case of Technical Equipment Officer Appointment Criteria Dispute
Analysis
- The High Court rejected the submission that the Appellants are entitled to relief under Section 25 of the PC Act.
- The S.R.O. issued under the Assam Rifles Act, 1941 does not hold the field after the 1941 Act was repealed and the 2006 Act was promulgated.
- The charge-sheet against the Respondent is for an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.
- An offence under the PC Act can be tried by the GARC in respect of Assam Rifles members.
- Cases triable under the PC Act against Assam Rifles members must be tried by a special Judge under the PC Act.
- The 2006 Act is not included in Section 25 (1) and the Appellants cannot claim exemption from the PC Act provisions.
- Presumption against implied repeal indicates that Section 4 of the PC Act and Section 55 of the 2006 Act, in apparent conflict, can be harmoniously construed.
- A special Judge under the PC Act is appointed by a notification issued under Section 3 by the Central or State Government.
- The Court of the special Judge is deemed to be a Court of Sessions as per Section 5 of the PC Act.
- Section 28 of the PC Act states that its provisions are additional, not derogatory to any other existing law.
- The 2006 Act and the PC Act, with different objects, run parallel lines without meeting.
- There is a presumption against repeal by implication unless provisions of the later Act are so inconsistent or repugnant with earlier Act that they cannot stand together.
- For the purpose of laws mentioned in Section 25 (1), the Court of a special Judge is deemed to be a Court of ordinary criminal justice.
- Any civil offence by an Assam Rifles member will be tried by the GARC, indicating that they can be liable to face trial for offences triable by a criminal court.
- Statutes in pari materia, though in conflict, should be construed to be in harmony where possible.
- Courts lean against implying repeal unless provisions are so plainly repugnant that they cannot stand together.
- The 2006 Act is not included in Section 25 (1) of the PC Act.
- Consolidation and amendment of laws related to prevention of corruption is the object of the PC Act, while governance and security of the Assam Rifles is the focus of the 2006 Act.
- Jurisdiction under specific Acts mentioned in Section 25 of the PC Act is not affected by the PC Act.
- GARC was not declared a Court of special Judge, suggesting that offences under the PC Act should be tried only by special Judges appointed by the Government.
- Offences not triable by GARC are specified in Section 56 of the 2006 Act.
- Section 4 of the PC Act mandates that offences punishable under the Act shall be tried only by a special Judge.
- A person subject to the Act committing certain offences against an individual not subject to the Act will not be tried by an Assam Rifles Court, except under specific circumstances.
- Section 2 (e) of the 2006 Act defines a civil offence as one triable by a criminal court.
- Section 2 (h) of the 2006 Act defines a criminal court as a court of ordinary criminal justice in any part of India.
- Section 2 (r) of the 2006 Act defines an offence as any act punishable under the Act, including a civil offence.
- Section 55 of the 2006 Act states that a person subject to the Act committing a civil offence can be tried by an Assam Rifles Court under certain conditions.
- The punishment for committing a civil offence under the Act varies based on the severity of the offence, as per the provisions mentioned.
- Section 56 of the 2006 Act also plays a role in determining the treatment of civil offences committed by individuals subject to the Act.
- When a later special or local statute does not completely conflict with a general statute, both can coexist.
- Section 4 of the PC Act is not irreconcilable with Section 55 of the 2006 Act.
- There is no real conflict between the provisions of the two statutes; they can operate in parallel.
- A general statute applies unless a special statute exists to address the same subject matter.
- The jurisdiction of the GARC under Section 55 of the 2006 Act is an exception to the provisions of the PC Act.
- The GARC has the jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act against members of the Assam Rifles.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement on Transfer of Mining Environmental Clearances
Decision
- The High Court’s judgment has been set aside
- The appeal has been allowed
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS Vs. RANJIT KUMAR SAHA
Case Number: C.A. No.-005136-005136 / 2019
