1957 (2) TMI 71 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Presidency Magistrate post-enactment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952.
2. Constitutionality of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 under Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Validity of the acquittal and subsequent re-trial order by the High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Presidency Magistrate Post-Enactment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952:

The appellant was initially tried by the Presidency Magistrate for offences under sections 161, 116, 109, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, came into force on July 28, 1952, which mandated that offences under sections 161, 165, or 165-A of the IPC or sub-section 2 of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, be tried by Special Judges only. The Act also required that all such pending cases before magistrates be transferred to Special Judges. The High Court held that the Presidency Magistrate was divested of jurisdiction to continue the trial after the commencement of the Act, rendering any proceedings conducted thereafter, including the acquittal of the appellant, void. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the trial was pending on July 28, 1952, and thus should have been transferred to the Special Judge as per the Act.

2. Constitutionality of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 Under Article 14 of the Constitution:

The appellant contended that the Act violated the principle of equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents argued that the classification of offences under the Act was based on intelligible differentia and had a rational relation to the objective of providing a more speedy trial of certain offences. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act, stating that the classification of offences related to bribery and corruption was reasonable and had a clear relation to the objective of eliminating delay in trials. The Court cited previous judgments, emphasizing that reasonable classification for legislative purposes is permissible under Article 14.

3. Validity of the Acquittal and Subsequent Re-trial Order by the High Court:

The High Court set aside the acquittal of the appellant, ordering a re-trial by the Special Judge. The appellant argued that the Presidency Magistrate retained jurisdiction until the notification of the Special Judge on September 26, 1952. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the case was pending before the Presidency Magistrate on July 28, 1952, and thus should have been transferred immediately. The Court acknowledged the inconvenience of a re-trial but emphasized the clear legislative mandate requiring the transfer of such cases to Special Judges. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order for a re-trial, urging that it be conducted expeditiously.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Presidency Magistrate lacked jurisdiction post-July 28, 1952, and that the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, was constitutionally valid. The order for a re-trial by the Special Judge was deemed correct, with the Court expressing hope for a swift conclusion to the proceedings.