CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus SUBODH KUMAR DUTTA AND ANR.

Cognizance taken by the Special Court before repeal of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is specifically saved by Section 30 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; High Court order quashing proceedings based only on Section 26 was erroneous.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Appellant: Central Bureau of Investigation; Respondent No. 1: Subodh Kumar Dutta; Respondent No. 2: Respondent No. 2
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 17 January 1997
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Appeal Disposed; Remanded to High Court
Outcome: Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration.
Legal Topics: Prevention of Corruption Act, Repeal and Saving Clause, Jurisdiction of Special Courts, Quashing of Proceedings

Criminal Law Prevention of Corruption Act Repeal and Saving Clause Jurisdiction of Special Courts Quashing of Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Central Bureau of Investigation

Appellant

Subodh Kumar Dutta

Respondent No. 1

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Disposed; Remanded to High Court

Legal Issues

1 Whether cognizance by Special Court under repealed Act is saved by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
2 Jurisdiction of Special Court constituted under West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949
3 Effect of repeal of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on pending proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration.

Orders

Order of High Court dated 22.12.1995 set aside.
Criminal Revision Petition to be decided afresh on merits after hearing parties.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.