Cognizance of offences

Subsection (1) of S.36 embodies an ouster clause that ousts jurisdiction of any other court to take cognizance of any offence or matter under the Act to which jurisdiction of the Medical Tribunal extends, subsection (2) thereof confers original jurisdiction upon the Medical Tribunal to provide remedies of a complaint or claim to any person aggrieved by an act which is an offence under the Act

Original jurisdiction conferred under S.36(2) provides remedies to an aggrieved person on criminal as well as civil sides i.e. a criminal complaint and a civil claim in relation to an act which constitutes an offence under the Act.

Ouster of jurisdiction in S.36(1) is confined to taking of cognizance of any offence or matter under the Act to which the jurisdiction of the Medical Tribunal extends i.e. the matters falling within the original and the appellate jurisdiction of the Medical Tribunal

Conferring of jurisdiction under the Act does not control, curtail or restrict the jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution to entertain and decide a constitutional challenge qua vires of any provision of the Act, Rules or Regulations made thereunder.

Concept of cognizance had to be considered in terms of S.154, Cr.P.C. at first instance and primary requirement of same was that a criminal matter could only be agitated within jurisdiction of a particular police station where offence was committed and such analogy had to be kept in mind while filing criminal complaint and content of such complaint should disclose territorial jurisdiction where prima face offence was committed.

Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. provide remedy to the citizens at their door steps against the highhandedness of the police, if they fail to perform their duties regarding registration of criminal case, proper investigation or excess is committed by them in relation to their functions and duties

Said provisions are not meant to interfere in the judicial functions of the courts where challan is submitted and cognizance is taken by the court of competent jurisdiction.

Appellant claimed that he purchased certain agricultural land through registered sale deed; got possession from the previous owner and started development on the land

Interested persons after failure of the efforts in establishing the right of pre-emption patronized the respondents, who on their instigation illegally occupied 12-13 acres of land

Trial Court took cognizance on the complaint of appellant but acquitted the respondents on the ground that possession of respondents could not be termed as illegal

Validity

Held, every illegal dispossession created a ground for invoking the jurisdiction of courts dealing with criminal cases by filing a complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Ground taken by the Trial Court was not sustainable under law

High Court set aside the judgment and remanded the matter to the Trial Court with direction to pass fresh judgment after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Petitioner was accused of filing false declaration at the time of submission of his nomination papers and he was summoned by Sessions Judge

Plea raised by petitioner was that complaint could not be filed by Election Commission directly in the Court of Sessions Judge

Validity

Election Commission or his nominee, in respect of cognizable offence under S.82 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, could file complaint under S.94 of Representation of the people Act, 1976

Sessions Judge had the jurisdiction to directly entertain such complaint

No illegality or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction was pointed out in the orders passed by Sessions Judge

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

For purpose of an inquiry or investigation, the officer so inquiring/investigating would have all the powers as were available with Officer-in-charge of a Police Station under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 provided under Chapter XIV of the said Code

Inquiry/investigation could be initiated only by the Chairman of the Bureau or an Officer of the NAB duly authorized by him

If an inquiry or investigation was ordered in respect of offence punishable under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 by Chairman NAB, then during the course of said inquiry or investigation of such offence, any officer duly authorized by Chairman, was competent to call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself; whether there had been any contravention of the provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, or any rule or order made thereunder

Mere irregularity or illegality on the part of the Investigating Officer in following procedure within meaning of Chapter XIV of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 would not cost an offence to go unattended; because an irregularity or illegality in procedure could be cured, but not the impacts and effects of an offence, if same was let un-touched, despite its being coming to light

National Accountability Bureau authorities, could not be precluded to issue call-up notices or restrain to conduct an inquiry/investigation

Said authorities were lawfully authorized to conduct inquiry/investigation, and interference into such inquiries/investigations by the NAB authorities would seriously prejudice the prosecution towards its right in probing into an investigation/inquiry of an offence

No illegality or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments/order

Impugned judgment being well reasoned and well founded, no interference was warranted

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was dismissed.

Complainant could not take charge of proceedings initiated under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and effect independent representation in such proceedings

Petitioner sought direction from the high Court inter alia for restraining NAB officials from taking coercive actions against them and to quash the proceedings initated by NAB on private complaint by the complainant Bank

Complainant Bank was sought to be impleaded in the proceedings as a respondent

Validity

Perusal of S.18(b)(iii) of the Ordinance showed that the Chairman or an officer of the NAB duly authorized by the Chairman, was empowered to initiate proceedings against any person "on receipt of a complaint" but the entire Ordinance did not confer any right upon the complainant to take charge of the proceedings initiated by the Chairman NAB or to effect representation independently

Law in such respect was so rigid that it did not even permit the Accountability Court to take cognizance of any offence except on a reference made by the Chairman NAB or an officer of the NAB duly authoriszed by the Chairman NAB

Section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 provided a right of appeal which reflected that no right of the appeal had been conferred upon the complainant, and even in those cases which were initiated on basis of private complaint, the right of appeal had been exclusively conferred upon the Chairman NAB or the convict

High Court held that the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 was limited to its application to only those who were provided with the right of appeal under the Ordinance

Application of complainant Bank to be impleaded as a respondent was dismissed, however, High Court allowed the counsel of the respondent to assist the prosecution.