Can the conviction be quashed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court because the Special Court lacked jurisdiction over the bribery offence not listed at assignment?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a person accused of offering an illegal gratification to a court official during the pendency of a criminal trial is later convicted by a Special Court that was constituted under a State amendment, but the offence for which the conviction is recorded was inserted into the statutory schedule only after the case had been assigned to that Special Court. The accused contends that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to try the offence because, at the time of distribution, the offence was not listed in the Schedule of the Special Courts Act, and therefore the conviction is void.

The factual backdrop is that the accused, while appearing before a Sessions Court, approached a presiding magistrate’s clerk with a modest sum of cash, proposing it as a “thank‑you” for ensuring a favourable order. The clerk reported the approach to the investigating agency, which promptly lodged an FIR alleging bribery and abetment of a criminal proceeding. The investigating agency forwarded the case to the State’s Special Courts Authority, which, by way of a government notification, assigned the matter to a Special Court designated to try offences enumerated in the Schedule of the State Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act.

At the time of the notification, the Schedule listed offences such as criminal conspiracy, extortion and forgery, but it did not contain the newly introduced provision on “abetting a public servant in the performance of official duties,” which had been inserted by a subsequent amendment to the Act. The Special Court, unaware of the legislative timeline, framed a charge under the newly inserted provision and, after a brief trial, convicted the accused, imposing a term of rigorous imprisonment.

On appeal before the regular High Court, the prosecution argued that the Special Court’s jurisdiction was derived from the general powers of a magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure and that any procedural irregularity could be cured by the protective provision that shields magistrates acting in good faith. The accused, however, maintained that the Special Court’s jurisdiction was statutorily limited to offences expressly listed at the moment of case distribution, and that the later amendment could not retroactively confer jurisdiction.

When the appellate court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Special Court’s jurisdiction was valid, the accused’s counsel filed a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking quashing of the conviction on the basis that the Special Court had acted without jurisdiction. The petition argued that the protective provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which applies to ordinary magistrates, does not extend to Special Judges whose authority is contingent upon a statutory distribution that must reference an offence listed in the Schedule at that time.

The revision petition highlighted that the ordinary factual defence of denying the bribery allegation was insufficient because the core defect lay in the very jurisdiction of the forum that rendered the judgment. Even if the factual defence succeeded, a judgment passed by a court lacking jurisdiction would be a nullity, and the accused’s liberty could not be surrendered on that basis. Consequently, the appropriate remedy was to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court under the revisionary jurisdiction conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a declaration that the conviction was void for lack of jurisdiction.

In preparing the petition, the accused engaged a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who meticulously examined the notification dated prior to the amendment, the schedule of offences at that moment, and the statutory provisions governing the appointment of Special Judges. The counsel also consulted a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court to ensure that the arguments would be consistent with precedent on jurisdictional defects in Special Courts across jurisdictions, thereby strengthening the petition’s comparative law foundation.

The revision petition, filed as a petition under the revisionary powers of the High Court, specifically invoked the principle that a Special Court may try only those offences expressly enumerated in the Schedule at the time of case distribution. It relied on earlier decisions of the Supreme Court that clarified the limited scope of the protective provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that it cannot cure a jurisdictional defect arising from statutory distribution.

Furthermore, the petition argued that the State’s failure to issue a subsequent notification under the amendment to appoint a Special Judge for the newly added offence amounted to a procedural lacuna that could not be ignored. The absence of such a notification meant that the Special Court was exercising jurisdiction beyond the limits conferred by the Special Courts Act, rendering the conviction ultra vires.

In response, the State’s counsel, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, contended that the Special Court’s authority derived from the general powers of a magistrate and that the amendment’s retrospective effect should be read to validate the conviction. The counsel further asserted that the protective provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be interpreted broadly to encompass all judicial officers acting in good faith.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, examined the statutory scheme, the chronology of the amendment, and the nature of the notification that assigned the case. It concluded that the Special Court’s jurisdiction was indeed predicated on the Schedule as it stood on the date of distribution, and that the later amendment could not be applied retroactively to confer jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court held that the conviction was void for lack of jurisdiction and quashed the order of the Special Court.

This outcome illustrates why the ordinary factual defence of denying the bribery allegation was not the complete answer at the procedural stage. The decisive issue was the jurisdictional competence of the forum, a matter that could only be addressed through a High Court revision petition seeking quashing of the conviction. By filing the appropriate proceeding before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the accused was able to obtain relief that a simple defence on the merits could not provide.

Question: Does the Special Court possess jurisdiction to try the accused when the alleged offence of abetting a public servant was not listed in the Schedule of the Special Courts Act at the time the case was assigned by notification?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused approached a clerk of a Sessions Court with a cash inducement, prompting the investigating agency to lodge an FIR and forward the matter to the State’s Special Courts Authority. The authority issued a notification assigning the case to a Special Court that, on the date of issuance, was empowered to try only those offences expressly enumerated in the Schedule of the Special Courts Act. At that moment the Schedule contained offences such as criminal conspiracy, extortion and forgery, but it omitted the newly introduced provision on abetting a public servant. The Special Court nevertheless framed a charge under the later‑added provision and proceeded to convict. The legal problem therefore centers on whether jurisdiction is conferred by the statutory distribution alone or whether the substantive content of the offence must also be present in the Schedule at the moment of assignment. Jurisprudence on specialised tribunals holds that the jurisdiction of a Special Court is a function of the statutory grant, which is conditional upon the offence being listed at the time of distribution. Consequently, the absence of the offence from the Schedule creates a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by subsequent legislative amendment unless a fresh notification is issued to reflect the change. Procedurally, the defect renders any trial proceedings void ab initio, obliging the court to dismiss the charge or the higher forum to set aside the conviction. For the accused, this means that the conviction cannot stand and that his liberty should be restored. For the prosecution, it signals the need to re‑file the case in a forum that has proper jurisdiction, such as a regular Sessions Court, if the offence remains prosecutable. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would therefore argue that the Special Court’s jurisdiction was ultra vires, seeking a declaration of nullity to protect the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial.

Question: Can the protective provision that shields magistrates acting in good faith be extended to cover Special Judges, thereby curing the jurisdictional defect identified in this case?

Answer: The protective provision in the procedural code is designed to safeguard ordinary magistrates who, acting in good faith, exceed their jurisdiction inadvertently. Its purpose is to prevent the miscarriage of justice due to technical lapses while preserving the finality of proceedings. In the present scenario, the accused contends that the Special Court is a distinct entity whose authority is not derived from the general powers of a magistrate but from a specific statutory grant that hinges on the offence being listed in the Schedule at the time of case distribution. The State’s counsel, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, argues that the protective provision should be read broadly to encompass all judicial officers, including Special Judges, on the basis that they are also officers of the court. However, legal analysis distinguishes between the ordinary jurisdiction of a magistrate, which is inherent under the procedural code, and the jurisdiction of a Special Judge, which is a statutory creation limited by the terms of the Special Courts Act. The protective provision cannot override a clear statutory limitation because doing so would effectively amend the legislation, a power reserved for the legislature. Therefore, the jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by the protective provision; the defect is substantive, not merely procedural. The procedural consequence is that the High Court must treat the conviction as a nullity rather than a mere irregularity that can be regularised. Practically, this means the accused’s petition for quashing the conviction is likely to succeed, while the prosecution must seek a fresh trial in a competent forum. The distinction also serves as a warning to the investigating agency and the Special Courts Authority to ensure that future notifications strictly comply with the statutory schedule, lest their orders be vulnerable to similar challenges.

Question: What is the legal effect of a conviction rendered by a court that lacked jurisdiction, and how does this impact the accused’s liberty and the prosecution’s case?

Answer: A conviction issued by a forum without jurisdiction is a nullity from the moment of its pronouncement. The legal effect is that the judgment has no operative force, cannot be executed, and must be set aside on the basis that the court never acquired the authority to adjudicate the matter. In the factual context, the Special Court convicted the accused of offering an illegal gratification, yet the court’s jurisdiction was compromised because the offence was not listed in the Schedule at the time of case assignment. This defect strikes at the core of the court’s power, rendering the conviction void irrespective of the factual merits of the bribery allegation. The practical implication for the accused is immediate: any custodial order, fine, or other punitive measure must be released, and the accused’s liberty restored. Moreover, the conviction cannot be used as a basis for collateral consequences such as disqualification from public office or enhancement of future sentences. For the prosecution, the nullity means that the evidentiary record compiled during the trial cannot be salvaged; the case must be re‑initiated, if at all, before a competent court that possesses the requisite jurisdiction. This may involve filing a fresh FIR, obtaining a new charge sheet, and securing a fresh notification that reflects the current schedule of offences. The prosecution also faces the risk that the passage of time may affect witness availability and evidence integrity, potentially weakening its case. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would therefore emphasize that the High Court’s quashing order not only restores the accused’s freedom but also obliges the State to respect statutory boundaries, thereby preserving the rule of law and preventing the erosion of procedural safeguards.

Question: Which procedural remedy is available to the accused to challenge the jurisdictional defect of the Special Court, and why is a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the appropriate avenue?

Answer: The accused’s primary procedural remedy is to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court by the procedural code. This jurisdiction allows the High Court to examine the legality of any proceeding in a subordinate court, including the existence of jurisdictional defects. In the present case, the accused filed a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a declaration that the conviction was void for lack of jurisdiction. The choice of a revision petition is appropriate because the conviction was rendered by a Special Court, which is a subordinate tribunal under the State’s Special Courts Act, and the High Court possesses supervisory authority over such tribunals. An appeal on the merits would be premature, as the conviction itself is legally infirm; the High Court must first determine whether the Special Court had the power to try the case at all. The revision petition also circumvents the need for a fresh appeal against the conviction, which would be futile if the court’s jurisdiction is found lacking. Procedurally, the High Court can quash the order, direct the release of the accused, and direct the prosecution to re‑file the case, if desired, before a competent court. The practical implication for the accused is that a successful revision petition restores liberty and clears the criminal record, while for the prosecution it signals the necessity to respect statutory limits and possibly re‑initiate proceedings in a proper forum. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that the revisionary power is the most efficient and legally sound route to address the jurisdictional flaw, ensuring that the High Court’s decision carries the authority to set aside the void conviction.

Question: How does the timing of the legislative amendment that added the offence to the Schedule, and the requirement of a subsequent notification, affect the validity of the Special Court’s order?

Answer: The legislative amendment that inserted the offence of abetting a public servant into the Schedule was enacted after the Special Court had already received its assignment via notification. The statutory scheme mandates that a Special Court may try only those offences enumerated in the Schedule at the moment of case distribution, and that any change in the Schedule must be reflected in a fresh notification appointing a Special Judge for the newly added offence. In the factual scenario, the State failed to issue such a notification after the amendment, proceeding instead with the original assignment. This lapse creates a procedural lacuna: the Special Court exercised jurisdiction over an offence that, at the time of assignment, was not within its statutory competence. Consequently, the order of conviction is ultra vires because the court’s authority was never legally conferred for that offence. The practical effect is that the conviction cannot stand, and the High Court must declare it void. For the accused, this timing issue provides a robust ground for relief, as it demonstrates that the State’s own procedural mechanisms were deficient. For the prosecution, the timing underscores the necessity of strict compliance with statutory requirements; any future attempt to prosecute the same offence must be preceded by a proper notification that aligns with the current Schedule. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would highlight that the amendment’s retrospective application is impermissible, reinforcing the principle that legislative changes cannot retroactively validate a court’s jurisdiction absent explicit procedural compliance.

Question: Why does the remedy of quashing the conviction for lack of jurisdiction fall within the revisionary jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rather than any other forum?

Answer: The factual backdrop shows that the Special Court was constituted under a State amendment that limited its authority to offences listed in a Schedule at the moment of case distribution. The notification assigning the matter to the Special Court identified the charge as an offence that was not yet included in that Schedule. Because the Special Court’s jurisdiction is statutorily derived from the distribution order, any defect in that order cannot be cured by ordinary procedural safeguards that apply to regular magistrates. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides a specific revisionary power to the High Court to examine orders passed by subordinate courts when a jurisdictional defect is alleged. This power is not limited to ordinary courts but extends to Special Courts whose jurisdiction is created by statute. Consequently, the appropriate forum to challenge the conviction is the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which exercises the revisionary jurisdiction over the Special Court operating within the State. The High Court can declare the conviction void, set aside the sentence, and restore the accused to liberty. A petition filed elsewhere, such as a regular appellate division of a lower court, would lack the authority to examine the statutory limits of the Special Court’s jurisdiction. Moreover, the High Court’s power to issue a writ of certiorari or a declaration of nullity is essential when the defect is jurisdictional rather than procedural. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court becomes crucial because the counsel must frame the revision petition to invoke the specific statutory scheme, cite precedent on jurisdictional limits, and argue that the protective provision for magistrates does not extend to Special Judges. The practical implication is that the accused can obtain a definitive judicial pronouncement that the conviction is a nullity, something that cannot be achieved by a simple appeal on the merits. This route directly addresses the core defect and prevents the continuation of an unlawful deprivation of liberty.

Question: In what way does consulting a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court assist the accused in strengthening the revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The accused’s case involves a nuanced question of statutory interpretation that has been addressed in decisions of courts located in Chandigarh as well as in other jurisdictions. By retaining a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, the accused gains access to comparative jurisprudence on the scope of the protective provision for magistrates and the limits of Special Court jurisdiction. The counsel in Chandigarh can locate judgments where High Courts have refused to extend the protective provision to Special Judges, thereby providing persuasive authority that can be cited in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This comparative analysis enriches the revision petition, showing that the legal principle is not confined to a single jurisdiction but enjoys broader acceptance. Additionally, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can advise on procedural nuances such as the precise wording of the revision petition, the timing of service of notice to the State, and the preparation of annexures that demonstrate the chronological gap between the notification and the amendment. The counsel can also coordinate with a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court to ensure that the arguments are harmonized and that any local rules of the High Court are complied with. The practical benefit for the accused is a more robust petition that anticipates counter‑arguments from the State, such as claims of retrospective application of the amendment, and pre‑emptively addresses them with authoritative case law. This collaborative approach increases the likelihood that the High Court will recognize the jurisdictional defect and grant the relief of quashing the conviction, a result that would be difficult to achieve through a solitary factual defence alone.

Question: Why is the ordinary factual defence of denying the bribery allegation insufficient at this procedural stage, and why must the accused pursue a quashing remedy?

Answer: The factual defence focuses on the truth or falsity of the alleged act of offering gratification to a court official. While such a defence may succeed in a trial where the court has proper jurisdiction, it does not cure a defect that originates in the very authority of the forum that rendered the judgment. In the present scenario, the Special Court acted without jurisdiction because the offence was not listed in the Schedule at the time of case distribution. A judgment passed by a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity under the principle that no court can validly exercise power it does not possess. Even if the accused could prove that no illegal gratification was offered, the conviction would still be void because the statutory source of the Special Court’s power was never triggered. Therefore, the only effective remedy is to attack the jurisdictional foundation of the conviction through a quashing petition. The revisionary jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allows the accused to seek a declaration that the Special Court’s order is ultra vires and must be set aside. This remedy also enables the accused to obtain immediate release from custody, as the High Court can direct the release of a person detained on a judgment that is legally untenable. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is essential to draft the petition, cite the relevant statutory scheme, and argue that the protective provision for magistrates does not extend to Special Judges. The practical implication is that without a quashing remedy, the accused would remain incarcerated on a conviction that is legally defective, and any factual defence would be rendered moot by the jurisdictional flaw.

Question: What are the procedural steps that the accused must follow, with the assistance of lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court and lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, to file and pursue the revision petition effectively?

Answer: The procedural route begins with the preparation of a revision petition that sets out the factual matrix, identifies the statutory defect, and requests the Punjab and Haryana High Court to quash the conviction. The lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court drafts the petition, ensuring that it complies with the High Court’s rules on format, verification, and annexures, such as the original notification, the amendment order, and the judgment of the Special Court. The petition must specifically invoke the revisionary power to examine jurisdictional errors and request a writ of certiorari or a declaration of nullity. Once the petition is filed, the State is served with notice, and the court fixes a date for hearing. During this interval, the lawyer in Chandigarh High Court assists by gathering comparative judgments from the Chandigarh jurisdiction that support the argument that the protective provision does not apply to Special Judges. These judgments are incorporated as precedents in the petition and cited during oral arguments. On the hearing day, the counsel for the accused presents the factual timeline, demonstrates the absence of a post‑amendment notification appointing a Special Judge for the newly added offence, and argues that the Special Court exceeded its statutory mandate. The State’s counsel may counter by asserting retrospective effect of the amendment, but the combined authority of the two lawyers enables a robust rebuttal grounded in case law from both jurisdictions. If the High Court is satisfied, it will issue an order quashing the conviction, directing the release of the accused, and possibly directing the State to reimburse legal expenses. If the High Court declines, the counsel may consider filing a further review or approaching the Supreme Court, but the primary objective remains to obtain immediate relief through the revisionary jurisdiction, a route that cannot be achieved by a simple factual defence alone.

Question: How does the timing of the amendment that inserted the offence of abetting a public servant into the Schedule of the Special Courts Act affect the jurisdiction of the Special Court that tried the accused?

Answer: The factual backdrop shows that the accused approached a court clerk with a cash inducement while the case was pending before a Sessions Court. The investigating agency lodged an FIR and the State’s Special Courts Authority assigned the matter to a Special Court by way of a notification that referenced the Schedule as it existed on the date of distribution. At that moment the Schedule listed offences such as criminal conspiracy, extortion and forgery, but it did not contain the newly created provision on abetting a public servant, which was added by a subsequent amendment. The legal problem therefore hinges on whether a Special Court may acquire jurisdiction over an offence that was not enumerated at the time of case assignment. Jurisdiction of a Special Court is statutorily limited to offences expressly listed in the Schedule at the moment of distribution; the authority to try a case does not flow from the general powers of a magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the later amendment cannot be read retrospectively to confer jurisdiction because the statutory scheme requires a contemporaneous link between the notification and the Schedule. The procedural consequence is that any judgment rendered by the Special Court is void for lack of jurisdiction, regardless of the merits of the bribery allegation. Practically, this means that the accused’s liberty cannot be surrendered on a jurisdictionally defective order, and the conviction must be set aside. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would need to examine the exact dates of the notification, the amendment gazette, and the Schedule as published at that time, to demonstrate the temporal disconnect. The High Court, upon finding the defect, can quash the conviction and restore the accused’s status, while also signalling to the prosecution that future case assignments must strictly adhere to the Schedule in force at the moment of distribution.

Question: What procedural defects arise from the absence of a specific notification appointing a Special Judge for the newly added offence, and how can those defects be addressed in the revision petition?

Answer: The procedural record reveals that after the amendment inserted the offence of abetting a public servant into the Schedule, the State failed to issue a fresh notification under the amendment to formally appoint a Special Judge for that offence. The legal problem is that the Special Court that tried the accused derived its authority solely from the original notification, which referenced a Schedule that did not contain the offence. Without a subsequent notification, the statutory mechanism that confers jurisdiction on a Special Judge remains incomplete, creating a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by the protective provision that shields ordinary magistrates acting in good faith. The procedural consequence is that the trial proceeded without a valid source of jurisdiction, rendering the conviction ultra vires. To address this defect, the revision petition must meticulously highlight the statutory requirement that a Special Judge’s jurisdiction is contingent upon a specific notification that matches the offence listed at the time of assignment. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court would advise that the petition should attach copies of the original notification, the amendment gazette, and the Schedule before and after the amendment, demonstrating the gap. The petition can argue that the absence of a corrective notification is a fatal procedural irregularity that defeats any claim of good faith. The High Court can then invoke its revisionary powers to declare the conviction void, emphasizing that procedural compliance is a prerequisite for any substantive adjudication. The petition may also request that the court direct the State to issue a proper notification for future cases, thereby preventing recurrence of the defect. By focusing on the procedural lapse rather than the factual merits, the accused’s counsel maximizes the chance of relief.

Question: What are the risks and considerations regarding bail and custody for the accused while the revision petition is pending before the High Court?

Answer: After the Special Court’s conviction, the accused was taken into custody and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The legal problem now is whether the accused can obtain bail pending the determination of the revision petition that challenges the jurisdiction of the Special Court. The procedural consequence is that, although the conviction is under appeal, the accused remains incarcerated unless a bail order is secured. The practical implication is that continued custody may prejudice the accused’s ability to prepare the revision petition, especially if access to documents and witnesses is restricted. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would recommend filing an interim bail application on the ground that the conviction is void for lack of jurisdiction, and therefore the basis for detention is legally infirm. The bail application should emphasize that the High Court’s revisionary jurisdiction is a discretionary power to examine jurisdictional defects, and that the accused’s liberty is at stake pending that examination. The court may consider factors such as the nature of the alleged bribery, the length of the sentence, the accused’s ties to the community, and the likelihood of success of the revision petition. If bail is granted, the accused can more effectively coordinate with counsel, gather documentary evidence, and attend hearings. If bail is denied, the accused must continue to serve the sentence, which could exacerbate the hardship and potentially lead to claims of unlawful detention. The counsel should also be prepared to argue that the protective provision for magistrates does not apply to Special Judges, reinforcing the argument that the conviction lacks legal foundation. Ultimately, securing bail mitigates the risk of the accused suffering further deprivation of liberty while the High Court evaluates the jurisdictional challenge.

Question: How should the accused’s counsel structure the revision petition to maximize the chance of quashing the conviction, and what evidentiary documents are critical to support the jurisdictional argument?

Answer: The revision petition must be crafted as a petition under the revisionary powers of the High Court, seeking a declaration that the conviction is void for lack of jurisdiction. The legal problem is to demonstrate that the Special Court’s authority was predicated on a Schedule that did not contain the offence at the time of case distribution, and that no subsequent notification remedied this defect. The procedural consequence is that the High Court will assess whether the petition satisfies the requirements for a revision, including the presence of a jurisdictional flaw that cannot be cured by ordinary appellate remedies. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court would advise that the petition begin with a concise statement of facts, followed by a clear articulation of the statutory scheme governing Special Courts, the chronology of the amendment, and the specific notification that assigned the case. Critical evidentiary documents include: the original government notification assigning the case to the Special Court; the Schedule of offences as published on the date of that notification; the amendment gazette that inserted the offence into the Schedule; the absence of any later notification appointing a Special Judge for the new offence; the FIR and charge sheet showing the offence alleged; and the trial record indicating that the Special Court framed a charge under the newly inserted provision. The petition should attach certified copies of these documents as annexures, highlighting the temporal mismatch. It should also cite comparative jurisprudence from other High Courts where jurisdictional defects in Special Courts were held fatal, thereby reinforcing the argument. The relief sought must be specific: quashing of the conviction, release from custody, and a direction to the State to follow proper procedural channels in future assignments. By structuring the petition around a clear jurisdictional defect and supporting it with documentary proof, the counsel enhances the likelihood that the High Court will declare the conviction void.