1954 (12) TMI 17 - SC - Indian Laws

Infringement of fundamental right under Article 14 - Held that - No suggestion whatever that there has been at any stage any intentional or purposeful discrimination as against the appellants by the Sab-Divisional Magistrate or the District Magistrate or the section 30 Magistrate who actually tried the accused. Further, the discretion of judicial officers is not arbitrary and the law provides for revision by superior Courts of orders passed by the Subordinate Courts. In such circumstances, there is hardly any ground for Apprehending any capricious discrimination by judicial tribunals. No case of infringement of fundamental right under Article 14 has been made out. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Alleged infraction of fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Judicial discretion in the trial process under Section 30 Magistrates.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The primary issue in this appeal was the constitutionality of Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.). The appellants were tried by a Section 30 Magistrate and not by a Court of Session. Section 30 allows the State Government to invest the District Magistrate or any Magistrate of the first class with power to try as a Magistrate all offences not punishable with death. The appellants contended that this section brought about discrimination and inequality, thus offending Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Alleged Infraction of Fundamental Rights Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
The appellants argued that their fundamental rights under Article 14, which guarantees equal protection of the laws, were violated. They claimed that being tried by a Section 30 Magistrate, rather than a Court of Session, was discriminatory. The trial before a Sessions Judge was considered more advantageous to the accused, providing benefits like commitment proceedings and trial with the aid of a jury or assessors.

The Court examined whether this apparent discrimination violated Article 14. It reiterated that Article 14 forbids class legislation but allows reasonable classification for legislative purposes. Two conditions must be met for permissible classification: an intelligible differentia distinguishing grouped individuals from others, and a rational relation between the differentia and the statute's objective.

3. Judicial Discretion in the Trial Process Under Section 30 Magistrates:
The Court analyzed the procedural aspects under Section 30 and related provisions. Section 28 of the Cr. P. C. specifies that offences under the Indian Penal Code may be tried by various courts, including the High Court, Court of Session, or any other court as shown in the second schedule. Section 30, however, allows the State Government to empower certain Magistrates to try all offences not punishable with death, notwithstanding Sections 28 and 29.

The Court noted that Section 30 creates an additional court for trying such offences, rather than excluding other courts. The classification based on geographical or territorial considerations was deemed reasonable, as it addressed practical issues like the distance between the place of occurrence and the Sessions Court, inconvenience of bringing witnesses from remote areas, and lack of suitable jurors or assessors in backward places.

The Court also addressed the potential for abuse in the application of Section 30, citing the American case Yick Wo v. Peter Hopkins, which held that even a fair law could be discriminatory if administered with bias. However, the Court emphasized that the discretion to decide whether an accused should be tried by a Section 30 Magistrate or a Court of Session lies with judicial officers, not the police or executive. This discretion is exercised judicially, with provisions for revision by superior courts.

Conclusion:
The Court found no intentional or purposeful discrimination against the appellants. It concluded that Section 30 did not violate Article 14, as the classification it created was reasonable and related to the statute's objective. The judicial discretion exercised under this section was not arbitrary and was subject to review by higher courts. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no infringement of fundamental rights under Article 14 was established.

Judgment:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the constitutionality of Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upholding the trial process under this section as compliant with Article 14 of the Constitution.

← Previous Next →