Magistrate Loses Jurisdiction To Pass Orders After Prevention Of Corruption Act Sections Are Added To FIR: Calcutta High Court

"After addition of Section of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Learned Magistrate lost its jurisdiction to deal with the said matter any further... all orders passed by the Learned Magistrate after adding Sections under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act including extending time to complete investigation and taking cognizance is without jurisdiction" , Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 30, 2026, held that a Magistrate is divested of jurisdiction the moment offences under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988 are added to a criminal case.

Justice Krishna Rao observed that once such sections are invoked, the matter becomes a "Special Case" triable exclusively by a Special Judge appointed under the PC Act. The court clarified that any subsequent orders passed by a Magistrate, including extensions for investigation or taking cognizance of a chargesheet, are void and without legal authority.

The case originated from a 2006 FIR alleging the fraudulent withdrawal and misappropriation of over Rs. 5.14 Crores from Sarba Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) funds within the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council. The petitioner, an SAE, was accused of colluding with other officials to withdraw funds via "self-cheques" without actual disbursement to school committees. While the FIR initially cited only IPC offences, sections under the PC Act were added during the investigation in September 2006.

The primary question before the court was whether a Magistrate retains the power to extend investigation time or take cognizance after the addition of PC Act sections. The court also had to determine if the petitioner was entitled to a discharge under the West Bengal amendment to Section 167(5) of the CrPC due to a delay of over three years in completing the investigation.

Right To Discharge Under Section 167(5) CrPC Lapses After Filing Of Chargesheet

The petitioner argued that under the West Bengal amendment to Section 167(5) of the CrPC, the investigation should have been completed within two or three years. Since the chargesheet was filed after this period, the petitioner sought a discharge. The court, however, relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in Durgesh Chandra Saha Vs. Bimal Chandra Saha, noting that this statutory right is not absolute once the investigative stage is over.

The bench observed that the West Bengal amendment is intended to ensure speedy completion of investigation. If the investigation continues beyond the specified time, the accused must pray for stopping the investigation and seek discharge before the chargesheet is submitted. The court held that "his right lapses if the chargesheet is filed and thereafter the accused filed an application for discharge."

Magistrate Ceases To Have Jurisdiction Once PC Act Is Invoked

Addressing the jurisdictional challenge, the court examined Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. These provisions mandate that offences punishable under the Act must be tried exclusively by Special Judges. The court noted that on September 18, 2006, the Magistrate had allowed the addition of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act to the proceedings.

The court held that from that specific date, the matter became a "Special Case." Consequently, the Magistrate was required to immediately transfer the records to the concerned Special Judge. The bench emphasized that "once Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is added, the matter became Special Case and the Learned Magistrate had to send the record before the Learned Special Judge."

Orders Passed By Magistrate Post-Addition Of PC Act Charges Are Void

The court found that the Magistrate had continued to deal with the file long after the PC Act sections were added, even granting extensions for the investigation and eventually taking cognizance of the chargesheet in 2009. The High Court declared these actions legally untenable, as the Magistrate lacked the inherent jurisdiction to handle a case governed by the Special Act.

The bench noted that Section 5 of the PC Act provides the Special Judge with the powers of a Magistrate for taking cognizance and trying the case as a warrant case. Therefore, the Magistrate's continued oversight was a procedural illegality that vitiated the subsequent orders.

Court Declines To Quash Entire Proceeding On Merits

While the court set aside the Magistrate’s orders, it refused to quash the entire criminal proceeding. The petitioner had argued that there was no evidence except a signature on a cheque, but the court noted that the signature was corroborated by a handwriting expert. The bench held that the benefit the petitioner might have derived from the funds is a matter of trial.

The court clarified that it had not delved into the merits of the case and allowed the petitioner to raise all relevant issues, including the nature of his employment and entrustment of property, before the Special Judge. The bench directed the Magistrate to immediately transfer the case records to the Special Court for fresh proceedings.

The High Court concluded that all orders passed by the Magistrate after September 18, 2006, including the order taking cognizance and the subsequent refusal of discharge, were without jurisdiction. The court ordered the immediate transfer of the case to the Special Judge under the PC Act. The Special Judge has been directed to take appropriate steps, including segregating the petitioner's case if necessary, to ensure an expeditious trial.

Date of Decision: 30 April 2026