{"id":27958,"date":"1998-05-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-05-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998"},"modified":"2015-11-01T17:48:28","modified_gmt":"2015-11-01T12:18:28","slug":"nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998","title":{"rendered":"Nar Bahadur Bhandari Etc vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 13 May, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Nar Bahadur Bhandari Etc vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 13 May, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: Srinivasan<\/div>\n
Bench: M. Srinivasan, Syed Shah Quadri<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNAR BAHADUR BHANDARI ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t13\/05\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nM. SRINIVASAN, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nSRINIVASAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     The common\t question in  these petitions relates to the
\ncompetence of  Special Judge  (P.C. Act)  Sikkim to  try the
\ncases  registered   against  the  petitioners  herein  under
\nSection 5(2)  read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act.\t 1947 corresponding  to Section\t 13(2)\tread
\nwith Section  13(1)(e) of  the prevention of Corruption Act,
\n1988. The  petitioner in S.L.Ps 146-148 of 1998 is the third
\nrespondent in  S.L.Ps 149-150  of 1998 and the petitioner in
\nthe later  petitions is\t the third respondent in S.L.Ps 146-\n<\/p>\n
148. The  petitioner in\t the earlier petitions was the Chief
\nMinister of Sikkim and the petitioner in the later petitions
\nwas a  Member of Indian Administrative Service(Sikkim cadre)
\nworking at  the relevant  time as  a Secretary\tto the Rural
\nDevelopment Department, Government of Sikkim.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Cases were registered against the petitioners by C.B.I.
\non 26.5.84 and 7.8.84 under Section 5(2) read with Section
\n5 (1)(e)   and\tSection 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1)(d)  of
\nthe prevention\tof Corruption  Act 1947. On 7.1.87 the State
\nof Sikkim  issued a  Notification  withdrawing\tthe  consent
\ngiven  under   Section\t6   of\tthe   Delhi  Special  Police
\nEstablishment Act,  1946 to the C.B.I. for exercising powers
\nand jurisdiction  the State  of Sikkim for investigations of
\noffences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal
\nCode  specified\t therein  as  well  as\toffences  under\t the
\nPrevention of  Corruption Act,\t1947. The  said Notification
\nwas challenged\tin a writ petition filed under Article 32 of
\nthe Constitution  of India. This Court by its judgment dated
\nMarch 29,  1994 allowed\t the writ petition and declared that
\nthe Notification  dated 7.1.87 withdrawing the consent given
\nby  the\t  Government  of   Sikkim  earlier   operated\tonly
\nprospectively and  the said  withdrawal would  not apply  to
\ncases which  were  pending  investigation  on  the  date  of
\nissuance of   the said Notification. The Court observed that
\nthe Notification  dated 7.1.87\tdid not\t preclude the  C.B.I
\nfrom submitting\t the report  in the  competent\tcourt  under
\nSection 173  Cr.P.C.  on  the  basis  of  the  investigation
\nconducted in  RC 5\/84-\tCIU (A)\t and RC\t 8\/84- CIU  (A). The
\njudgment of  this Court\t is reported  in Kazi  Lhendup Dorji
\nVersus Central\tBureau of Investigation and others 1994 Supp
\n(2) S.C.C. 116.\n<\/p>\n
3.   It should\tbe mentioned  here that even before the said
\nwrit petition  was filed,  the prevention of Corruption Act,
\n1947 (hereinafter  referred to\tas ‘The\t Act of 1947)’ ) was
\nrepealed  and\tthe  prevention\t  of  Corruption  Act,\t1988
\n(hereinafter referred  to as  ‘The Act\tof 1988’)  came into
\nforce. The  Act of  1947 was extended to the State of Sikkim
\nwith  effect   from  1.9.76.   The  Delhi   Special   Police
\nEstablishment Act  1946 had  been extended  to the  State of
\nSikkim with  effect from  15.5.76. The\tAct of\t1988  became
\napplicable to the State of Sikkim from the date it came into
\nforce namely  9.9.88. On  13.9.1994 the\t following Acts were
\nmade applicable to the State of Sikkim.\n<\/p>\n
     1. Cr. P.C. 1973\n<\/p>\n
     2. Indian Penal Code 1860\n<\/p>\n
     3. Indian Evidence Act 1972
\n     On\t the   same  day,   the\t State\t of  Sikkim   issued
\nNotification under  Section 3  of The Act of 1988 appointing
\nShri A.\t P. Subba as Special Judge for trying cases referred
\nto in  clauses (a)  and (b)  of Section 3(1) of the said Act
\nfor the Whole of the State of Sikkim.\n<\/p>\n
4.   On 14.9.94\t the C.B.I. filed its report before the said
\nSpecial Judge  as permitted  by this  Court in\tits judgment
\ndated March  29,1994. The  Special Judge  passed a  detailed
\norder on  11.8.95 holding  that on the basis of materials on
\nrecord he  was of the view that prima facie there was ground
\nfor presuming  that the\t accused had  committed\t an  offence
\npunishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (1)(e)  of
\nthe Act\t of 1947  corresponding to  Section 13(2)  read with
\nSection 13  (1)(e)   of the  Act  of  1988  and\t accordingly
\ncharges had  to be framed. Thereafter the petitioners raised
\na preliminary  objection to  the competence  of the  Special
\nJudge to try the aforesaid offences. After hearing arguments
\non both\t sides the  special Judge  passed on order on 1.7.97
\nupholding the  preliminary objection and expressing the view
\nthat the  Court not  having been  constituted under Criminal
\nLaw (Amendment)\t Act, 1952  hereinafter referred  to as\t the
\n‘Act of\t 1952’ lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of and
\nto try\tthe offences  in the  present case. Consequently, it
\nheld that  further  proceedings\t in  both  the\tcases  stood
\ndropped and  the accused be discharged from their respective
\nbail bonds.\n<\/p>\n
5.   That other\t of the\t Special Judge was challenged before
\nthe high  Court in  Criminal Revision Nos. 1,3 and 4 of 1997
\nby the State and the C.B.I. The learned Chief Justice of the
\nHigh Court  on 24.9.1997  allowed the revision petitions and
\nheld that the Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the
\nact of 1988 had jurisdiction entertain the chargesheet filed
\nunder the  provisions of  the Act of 1988 with regard to the
\noffences committed  under the  Act of  1947 and directed the
\nspecial Judge  to   dispose of\tthe criminal case pending on
\nhis file  in accordance\t with law.  It is  that order of the
\nHigh Court which is challenged in these S.L.Ps.\n<\/p>\n
6. Learned  counsel for\t the petitioner in S.L.Ps 146-148 of
\n1998 has  contended as\tfollows:- Before  the passing of the
\nAct 1988  there were  two enactments  which dealt  with\t the
\noffences in question, namely, the Act of 1947 and the Act of
\n1952. The  Act of  1952 provided for constitution of Special
\nCourts to  try the  offences  under  the  Act  of  1947\t and
\nexcluded the  jurisdiction of other Courts.  The Act of 1952
\nwas not\t extended to  the State of Sikkim.  No special Court
\nwas constituted\t in the\t State of Sikkim to try the offences
\nunder the  Act of  1947.  Consequently, when the Act of 1988
\nwas passed  repealing both  the Act  of 1947  and the Act of
\n1952 and  bringing into force a consolidated and amalgamated
\nLegislation providing  not only\t for the  ingredients of the
\noffences but  also for the constitution of Special Courts to
\ntry the\t same, the Special Court constituted under Section 3
\nof the Act of 1988 has jurisdiction only to try the offences
\npunishable under  the said act.\t Such a Court cannot try the
\noffences  punishable  under  the  Act  of  1947\t unless\t the
\nproceeding in relation to such offences had commenced before
\na Special  Judge appointed  under the  Act of  1952.  In the
\nabsence of  such Special  Judge under the Act of 1952 in the
\nState of  Sikkim, Section  26 of  the Act  of  1988  is\t not
\napplicable and\tthe present  proceeding will not be governed
\nthereby.  Section 30 of the Act of 1988 is not applicable to
\nthe facts  of the  case in  as much as the repeal under Sub-
\nsec. (1)  of Section  30 is a joint repeal of both the Acts,
\nnamely, the  Act of 1947 and the Act of 1952.  sub–sec. (2)
\nof Section  30 will  come into play only if sub-sec.  91) is
\napplicable.   In the State of Sikkim the Act of 1952 was not
\nin force  so as\t to be repealed by sub-sec (1) of Section 30
\nand consequently  sub-section 2\t will not  apply. It is also
\ncontended the  Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will not
\nhelp the  prosecution in  the present case in as much as the
\nprovisions of the Act of 1988 indicate a different intention
\nas contemplated\t by the\t first part  of the  said Section 6.
\nAccording to  the learned  counsel if  the provisions of the
\nAct  of\t  1988\tare  perused,  it  will\t be  seen  that\t the
\nlegislative intention  is not  to  make\t Section  6  of\t the
\nGeneral Clauses Act applicable to the repeal of Act of 1947.
\nIn this\t connection reliance  is placed\t on the\t judgment of
\nthis Court  in State  of Punjab\t Versus Mohar Singh (1955) 1
\nS.C.R. 893.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Learned counsel  for the  petitioners in S.L.Ps 149-150
\nof 1998\t has contended that Section 30(2) of the Act of 1988
\ncan apply only if a proceeding had been initiated before the
\nsaid Act  came into  force so that it could be continued and
\nin the present case the proceeding was instituted only after
\nthe said  Act came  into force\tand consequently the Special
\nCourt had  no jurisdiction. It is also contended by him that
\nthe prosecution\t had conceded before the High Court that the
\nalleged offence\t is punishable\tunder Section 5(1) (d) and 5
\n(2) of\tthe Act\t of 1947  and not  under the Act of 1988 and
\ntherefore the special court has no jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Per contra,  learned Additional  Solicitor General\t has
\ncontended that\tSection 3  of the Act of 1988 has to be read
\nalong with Section 30(2) of the said Act and that it will be
\nclear therefrom\t that the  Special Court is competent to try
\nthe offences  under the\t Act of\t 1947 as  well as the Act of
\n1988. According to him a legal fiction is created by Section
\n30(2) by  which the  Act of  1988 is  deemed to have been in
\nforce at  the time  when the offences were committed and the
\ninvestigation  done.  Reliance\tis  placed  by\thim  on\t the
\njudgment of this Court in B.N. Kohli and others Versus State
\nof Uttar  Pradesh  and\tothers\t1966  (2)  S.C.R.  158.\t Our
\nattention is  also drawn  to the  judgment of  this Court in
\nC.B.I versus Subodh Kumar Dutta and another (1997) 10 S.C.C.
\n567 and\t it is contended that the matter is concluded by the
\njudgment in that case.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The contentions  urged on behalf of the petitioners are
\nbased on  a wrong  understanding of provisions of the Act of
\n1988. No  doubt, section  3 of\tthe said  Act refers only to
\noffences punishable  under the\tAct and\t the Special  Courts
\nconstituted under  Section 3  will have\t jurisdiction to try
\nthe offences  punishable under\tthe Act but Section 3 cannot
\nbe read\t in isolation.\tIt should  be read  along with other
\nprovisions of  the Act\tto  understand\tthe  scope  thereof.
\nSection 30(1)  of the  Act of  1988 repeals the Acts of 1947
\nand 1952.  that does  not mean\tthat any  offence which\t was
\ncommitted under\t the At\t of 1947  would cease  to be triable
\nafter the  repeal of the said Act. Normally Section 6 of the
\nGeneral Causes\tAct would  come into  play  and\t enable\t the
\ncontinuation of\t the proceedings  including investigation as
\nif the\trepealing Act  had  not\t been  passed.\tAs  per\t the
\nprovisions of  Section 6  of the   General  Clauses Act\t the
\nposition will  be as  if the  Act of 1947 continues to be in
\nforce for  the purpose\tof trying  the\toffence\t within\t the
\nmeaning of the said Act. Section 6 of the General Causes Act
\nhowever makes  it clear\t that the  said\t position  will\t not
\nobtain if  a different\tintention appears  in the  repealing
\nAct. In\t the present  case, the Act of 1988 is the repealing
\nAct. Sub-sec. (2) of Section 30 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (2)”\t Notwithstanding    such
\n     repeal, but  without  prejudice  to
\n     the application of section 6 of the
\n     General Clauses  Act  1897\t (10  of
\n     1897), anything  done or any action
\n     taken or  purported  to  have  been
\n     done or taken under or purported to
\n     have been done or taken under or in
\n     pursuance of  the Acts  so repealed
\n     shall, in\tso  far\t as  it\t is  not
\n     inconsistent with the provisions of
\n     this Act,\tbe deemed  to have  been
\n     done or taken under or in pursuance
\n     of the  Corresponding provision  of
\n     this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
The said  sub-section while on the one hand ensures that the
\napplication of\tSection 6  of the General Clauses Act is not
\nprejudiced, on\tthe other it expresses a different intention
\nas contemplated\t by the said Section 6. The last part of the
\nabove  sub-section   introduces\t a   legal  fiction  whereby
\nanything done  or action  taken under or in pursuance of the
\nAct of 1947 shall be deemed to have been done or taken under
\nor in  pursuance of  corresponding provisions  of the Act of
\n1988. That  is, the fiction is to the effect that the Act of
\n1988 had  come into force when such thing was done or action
\nwas taken.\n<\/p>\n
10.  This aspect of the matter was clearly elucidated by the
\nConstitution Bench  in B.  N. Kohli’s  case(supra). In\tthat
\ncase Ordinance\t27\/49 repealed Ordinance 12\/49. The relevant
\nprovision in  the repealing  Ordinance\twas  sub-sec.(3)  of
\nSection 58. That read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  ” The\t repeal by  this Act  of
\n     the   Administration   of\t Evacuee
\n     property  Ordinance,  1949\t or  the
\n     Hyderabad Administration of Evacuee
\n     property,\tRegulation   or\t of  any
\n     corresponding law\tshall not affect
\n     the  previous   operation\tof  that
\n     Ordinance,\t     Regulation\t      or
\n     Corresponding  law,   and\t subject
\n     thereto,  anything\t  done\tor   any
\n     action taken in the exercise of any
\n     power conferred  by or  under  that
\n     ordinance,\t     Regulation\t      or
\n     corresponding law,\t shall be deemed
\n     to have  been done\t or taken in the
\n     exercise of the powers conferred by
\n     or under  this Act\t as if\tthis act
\n     were in  force on\tthe day on which
\n     such thing\t was done  or action was
\n     taken.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.  While  construing\t the  said  sub-section,  the  Court
\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “… By  the first\t part of S.58(3)
\n     repeal of\tthe  statutes  mentioned
\n     therein did  not operate  to vacate
\n     things done  or action  taken under
\n     those  statutes.\tThis   provision
\n     appears to have been enacted with a
\n     view   to\t  avoid\t  the\tpossible
\n     application   of\t the   rule   of
\n     interpretation that  where\t statute
\n     expires  or  is  repealed,\t in  the
\n     absence  of   a  provision\t to  the
\n     contrary, it  is regarded as having
\n     never existed  except as to matters
\n     and transactions  past and\t closed:
\n     (see Surtees  versus Ellison (1829)
\n     9 B & C 752). This rule was altered
\n     by an  omnibus provision in General
\n     Clauses Act,  1897, relating to the
\n     effect of repeal of statutes by any
\n     Central Act  or Regulation.  By s.6
\n     of the  General Clauses  Act, it is
\n     provided,\tin   so\t far  as  it  is
\n     material, that  any; central Act of
\n     Regulation\t   made\t    after    the
\n     commencement of the General Clauses
\n     Act or  Regulation made  after  the
\n     commencement of the General Clauses
\n     Act  repeals   any\t enactment,  the
\n     repeal   shall   not   affect   the
\n     previous operation of any enactment
\n     so repealed  or anything  duly done
\n     or suffered  thereunder, or  affect
\n     any right, privilege, obligation or
\n     liability\tacquired,   occurred  or
\n     incurred  under  any  enactment  so
\n     repealed\t  or\t  affect     any
\n     investigation legal  proceeding  or
\n     remedy  in\t  respect  of  any  such
\n     right,    privilege,    obligation,
\n     liability, penalty,  forfeiture  or
\n     punishment as  aforesaid;\tand  any
\n     such      investigation,\t   legal
\n     proceeding\t  or   remedy\tmay   be
\n     instituted, continued  or enforced,
\n     any  such\t penalty  forfeiture  or
\n     punishment may  be imposed.  as  if
\n     the Repealing Act or Regulation had
\n     not  been\t passed.  But  the  rule
\n     contained in Section 6 applies only
\n     if a  different intention\tdoes not
\n     appear,  and  by  enacting\t Section
\n     58(3) the\tParliament has expressed
\n     a different  intention, for whereas
\n     the General Clauses Act keeps alive
\n     the  previous   operation\tof   the
\n     enactment repealed, and things done
\n     and  duly\t suffered,  the\t rights,
\n     privileges,     obligations      or
\n     liabilities acquired  or  incurred,
\n     and authorities  the investigation,
\n     legal proceeding  and  remedies  in
\n     respect  of   rights,   privileges,
\n     obligations,\t    liabilities,
\n     penalties,\t    forfeitures\t     and
\n     punishment and if the repealing Act
\n     or Regulation  had not been passed,
\n     Section 58\t (3) of\t Act 31\t of 1950
\n     directs that things done or actions
\n     taken   in\t   exercise   of   power
\n     conferred by  the repealed statutes
\n     shall be deemed to be done or taken
\n     under the\trepealing Act as if that
\n     latter Act were in force on the day
\n     on which  such thing  was\tdone  or
\n     action  was   taken.  The\trule  so
\n     enunciated makes  a clear departure
\n     from  the\t rules\t enunciated   in
\n     Section 6\tor the\tGeneral\t Clauses
\n     Act, 1897.\t By the\t first\tpart  of
\n     Section 58(3)  which  is  in  terms
\n     negative, the previous operation of
\n     the repealed  statutes survives the
\n     repeal.   Thereby\t  matters    and
\n     transactions past and closed remain
\n     operative;\t so  does  the\tprevious
\n     operation of  the repealed statute.
\n     But as pointed out by this Court in
\n     Indira  Sohanlal’s\t case  (1955)  2
\n     S.C.R. 1117  at P.1133,  the saving
\n     of the  previous operation\t of  the
\n     repealed statute.\tBut  as\t pointed
\n     out  by   this  Court   in\t  Indira
\n     Sohanlal’s\t case  (1955)  2  S.C.R.
\n     1117 at  P. 1113, the saving of the
\n     previous operation\t of the repealed
\n     law is not to be read as saving the
\n     future operation  of  the\tprevious
\n     law.  The\t previous   law\t  stands
\n     repealed, and  it has  not for  the
\n     future the\t partial operation as it
\n     is\t prescribed   by  Section  6  of
\n     General  Clauses  Act.  All  things
\n     done and  actions taken  under  the
\n     repealed statute  are deemed  to be
\n     done or taken in exercise of powers
\n     conferred by or under the repealing
\n     Act, as  if that  Act were in force
\n     on the  day on which that thing was
\n     done or  action was  taken. it  was
\n     clearly  the   intention\tof   the
\n     parliament\t  that\t  matters    and
\n     transactions past\tand closed  were
\n     not to  be deemed\tvacated\t by  the
\n     repeal of\tthe statute  under which
\n     they  were\t  done.\t  The\tprevious
\n     operation of  the statute\trepealed
\n     was  also\taffirmed  expressly  but
\n     things done  or actions taken under
\n     the  repealed  statute  are  to  be
\n     deemed  by\t fiction  to  have  been
\n     donor  taken  under  the  repealing
\n     Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.  On the basis of the above reasoning the Court held that
\nthe Custodian-\tGeneral\t had  jurisdiction  to\tentertain  a
\nrevision against  an order passed by the Deputy Custodian of
\nthe Evacuee  property under  Section 6\tof  Ordinance  12\/49
\nwhich was repealed by Ordinance 27\/49.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Applying the  said ratio  of the Constitution Bench, we
\narrive at  the conclusion that the Special Court constituted
\nunder Section 3 of the Act of 1988 has competence to try the
\noffences under the Act of 1947.\n<\/p>\n
14.  The judgment  in State  of Punjab\tversus\tMohar  singh
\n(supra) relied\ton by the learned counsel for the petitioner
\ndoes not  help him in any manner. The Court has only held in
\nthat case that in order to ascertain the different intention
\nwithin the  meaning of\tsection 6 of the General Clauses Act
\nthe Court has to read the provisions of repealing enactment.\n<\/p>\n
15.  In our  view, the\tmatter has  been set  at rest by the
\njudgment of  this Court\t in C.B.I. Versus Subodh Kumar Dutta
\nand another  (supra). That  was an appeal by the C.B.I. from
\nthe judgment  of the  High  Court  of  Calcutta\t allowing  a
\ncriminal revision  filed by  the respondent therein quashing
\nthe proceedings\t of the\t Special Court constituted under the
\nWest Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 for trying the offences
\nunder the  Act of  1947. A  case was  registered in November
\n1987 by\t the C.B.I.  before the special Court and cognizance
\nof the\toffence was  taken by  the Special  Judge on 9.7.88.
\nWhen the  Act of 1988 came into force on 9.9.88 an objection
\nwas taken  to the  competence of a Special Court to continue
\nwith the case. A Criminal Revision Petition was filed by the
\naccused\t before\t  the  High   Court  seeking  to  quash\t the
\nproceeding before the Special Judge. The High Court accepted
\nthe contention\tof the accused and opined that Section 26 of
\nthe Act\t of 1988  saved only  proceedings before the Special
\nCourts constituted  under the  Act of  1952  and  not  other
\nSpecial Courts. Consequently the proceeding was quashed.\n<\/p>\n
16.   Reversing\t that judgment of the High Court this Court,
\nheld that  by virtus  of the  provisions of  sub-sec. (2) of
\nSection 30  the proceeding  initiated under  the Act of 1947
\nshall be  deemed to  have been taken under the corresponding
\nprovisions of the Act of 1988 and consequently the Court had
\njurisdiction to\t continue the  Same. The relevant passage in
\nthe judgment reads  as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     ” A  bare look at the provisions of
\n     sub-sec. (2)  of Section  30  shows
\n     that anything  done or  any  action
\n     taken or  purported  to  have  been
\n     taken under  or in pursuance of the
\n     prevention of  Corruption Act, 1947
\n     shall be  deemed to have been taken
\n     under  or\t in  pursuance\t of  the
\n     corresponding  provision\tof   the
\n     Prevention of  Corruption Act 1988.
\n     In view of this specific provision,
\n     cognizance of  the offence taken by
\n     the Special  Court stood  saved. It
\n     appears that  the attention  of the
\n     learned Single  Judge of  the  High
\n     Court was not invited to Section 30
\n     (supra) or\t had it been so invited,
\n     we\t  have\t no   doubt   that   the
\n     proceedings which were saved by the
\n     1988  Act\t would\tnot   have  been
\n     quashed. The  learned Single  Judge
\n     has only  deferred to Section 26 of
\n     the 1988  Act  and\t we  agree  that
\n     under that\t Section, the cognizance
\n     taken by  the Special Court was not
\n     saved. Section  26 of  the 1988 Act
\n     has no  application to  this  case.
\n     The order of the High Court in view
\n     of the  clear provisions of Section
\n     30 (supra)\t cannot be sustained and
\n     we, therefore,  accept this  appeal
\n     and set aside the order of the High
\n     Court impugned before us. Since the
\n     High  Court  did  not  express  any
\n     opinion on\t the other points raised
\n     in the  revision petition,\t we deem
\n     it appropriate to remand the matter
\n     to the  High Court for deciding the
\n     Criminal revision\tpetition,  filed
\n     by\t Respondent   No.1,  afresh   on
\n     merits after hearing the parties in
\n     the light of  the observations made
\n     by us above….. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
17.  The present  one is  an afortiori\tcase. when a Special
\nCourt constituted  under an  enactment other than the Act of
\n1952 can continue the proceedings by virtue of Section 30(2)
\nof the\tAct of 1988, it goes without saying that the special
\nCourt constituted  under the Act of 1988 can take cognizance
\nof  the\t  report  filed\t before\t it  and  try  the  offences
\nparticularly when this Court had in its judgment dated March
\n29, 1994  held that  the  filing  of  such  report  was\t not
\nprecluded (vide 1994 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 116).\n<\/p>\n
18.  We have  no hesitation  to hold  that the special Judge
\n(P.C. Act) Sikkim is competent to try the offences for which
\nthe  appellants\t stand\tcharged.  Hence\t these\tappeals\t are
\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Nar Bahadur Bhandari Etc vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 13 May, 1998 Author: Srinivasan Bench: M. Srinivasan, Syed Shah Quadri PETITIONER: NAR BAHADUR BHANDARI ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/05\/1998 BENCH: M. SRINIVASAN, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNar Bahadur Bhandari Etc vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 13 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nar Bahadur Bhandari Etc vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 13 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-01T12:18:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nar Bahadur Bhandari Etc vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 13 May, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-01T12:18:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998\"},\"wordCount\":3501,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998\",\"name\":\"Nar Bahadur Bhandari Etc vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 13 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-01T12:18:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nar Bahadur Bhandari Etc vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 13 May, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Nar Bahadur Bhandari Etc vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 13 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nar Bahadur Bhandari Etc vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 13 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-01T12:18:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nar Bahadur Bhandari Etc vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 13 May, 1998","datePublished":"1998-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-01T12:18:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998"},"wordCount":3501,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998","name":"Nar Bahadur Bhandari Etc vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 13 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-01T12:18:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nar-bahadur-bhandari-etc-vs-state-of-sikkim-and-others-on-13-may-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nar Bahadur Bhandari Etc vs State Of Sikkim And Others on 13 May, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27958","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27958"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27958\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}