9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949. 2. Jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under the Act. 3. Validity of the trial procedure followed after the commencement of the Constitution. 4. Imposition of fine under the Act in light of Article 20 of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949: The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution by allowing the government to single out particular cases for trial by the Special Court, thereby denying the accused certain procedural advantages available under the ordinary law. The court examined the Act's provisions, including its title, preamble, and sections, to ascertain its underlying policy and purpose. The Act aimed to provide more speedy trials and effective punishment for certain offences, particularly those involving public servants and loss of government property. The court held that the classification of offences under the Act was based on an intelligible principle reasonably related to the legislative purpose and was not arbitrary. Therefore, the Act did not violate Article 14. 2. Jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under the Act: The appellants contended that the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try them as the offences under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were triable exclusively by the Court of Session. The court noted that the Special Court was constituted under the Act, which provided for the trial of specific offences, including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found that the Special Court had jurisdiction to try the appellants as the case was duly allotted to it by the State Government under Section 4 of the Act. 3. Validity of the trial procedure followed after the commencement of the Constitution: The appellants argued that the continuation of the trial by the Special Court after the commencement of the Constitution was invalid as it denied them the right to a jury trial, which would have been available under the ordinary procedure. The court referred to previous decisions, including Anwar Ali Sarkar's case and the Saurashtra case, to determine whether the procedure followed was discriminatory. The court held that the legislative policy underlying the Act provided a reasonable basis for the classification of offences and that the discretion vested in the government to allot cases to the Special Court was guided by the Act's policy and purpose. Therefore, the continuation of the trial by the Special Court was valid. 4. Imposition of fine under the Act in light of Article 20 of the Constitution: The first appellant was fined Rs. 50,000, including Rs. 47,550 received by him through the offence. The appellants argued that this fine violated Article 20, which prohibits imposing a penalty greater than what was prescribed under the law at the time of the offence. The court agreed that the additional fine of Rs. 47,550, imposed under the Act which came into force after the commission of the offence, contravened Article 20. Consequently, the court set aside the fine to the extent of Rs. 47,550 but upheld the remaining fine and the sentences of imprisonment. Separate Judgment by Bose J.: Bose J. dissented, expressing regret but firmly holding that the Act was discriminatory and violated the Constitution. He argued that the Act allowed the government to arbitrarily select cases for trial by the Special Court, thereby discriminating between individuals within the same class of offences. He emphasized the importance of maintaining fundamental liberties and cautioned against opening doors to potential abuses of power. He concluded that the convictions could not be upheld and called for a retrial under the ordinary procedure. Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, upholding the constitutionality of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Special Court, but the additional fine imposed under the Act was partially set aside due to its contravention of Article 20.
|
