1953 (3) TMI 23 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the trial procedure under Regulation X of 1359F.
2. Validity of the delegation of authority by the Chief Minister to make over cases for trial.
3. Constitutional validity of the provisions in Regulation X of 1359F under Article 14 and Article 13(1) of the Constitution.
4. Impact of the absence of committal proceedings and substitution of warrant procedure.
5. Denial of rights of revision, transfer, and confirmation of sentences.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Trial Procedure under Regulation X of 1359F:
The appellant, a Revenue Officer in Warangal, was tried under Regulation X of 1359F for various offences including murder. The trial commenced on 11th February 1950, post the enactment of the Constitution. The appellant argued that the procedure under Regulation X of 1359F deviated from normal law, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The court noted that the Regulation was a pre-Constitution statute, and its discriminatory provisions would only be void to the extent of inconsistency with fundamental rights. The trial procedure was scrutinized to determine if it provided a fair measure of equality.

2. Validity of the Delegation of Authority by the Chief Minister:
The appellant contended that the delegation of authority by the Chief Minister to the Civil Administrator was improper as it did not name the delegatee individually. The court rejected this argument, stating that delegation by official designation is permissible and convenient. The Civil Administrator was duly authorized to make over cases for trial under Section 5(b) of the Regulation.

3. Constitutional Validity of Provisions under Article 14 and Article 13(1):
The appellant argued that Regulation X of 1359F became void post-26th January 1950 due to its conflict with Article 14. The court referenced the principles from Qasim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad, emphasizing that the Constitution is not retrospective and only invalidates inconsistent provisions. The trial's fairness was evaluated based on whether the accused received benefits akin to a trial under ordinary law. The court found no substantial deviation in the procedure that would amount to denial of equal protection.

4. Impact of the Absence of Committal Proceedings and Substitution of Warrant Procedure:
The appellant argued that the absence of committal proceedings and the use of warrant procedure were discriminatory. The court, relying on the precedent set in Qasim Razvi's case, held that committal proceedings were not indispensable under the Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code. The differences between warrant and sessions procedures were deemed minor and not substantial enough to violate Article 14.

5. Denial of Rights of Revision, Transfer, and Confirmation of Sentences:
The appellant highlighted the denial of rights of revision, transfer, and confirmation of sentences as discriminatory. The court interpreted Section 8 of the Regulation, concluding that the right to apply for transfer and revision (except for non-appealable sentences) remained intact. The provision denying confirmation of sentences was found invalid under Articles 13(1) and 14. However, this did not affect the trial procedure but only impacted the execution stage of the sentence. The court noted that the death sentence had not yet been executed and the issue of confirmation by H.E.H. the Nizam would arise only if the appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was no procedural discrimination affecting the trial's fairness. The appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld, and the constitutional points raised were dismissed. The case was directed to be heard on its merits. Justice Ghulam Hasan concurred with the majority but emphasized the severability of the discriminatory provision regarding sentence confirmation. The petition under Article 32 was dismissed.