1952 (10) TMI 41 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the trial under Section 556 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Validity of the sanction under Section 38 of the Assam Food Grains Control Order, 1947.
3. Legality of forfeiture of the security bond under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Appropriateness of the enhanced sentence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the trial under Section 556 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The appellant argued that the trial was void due to a contravention of Section 556, Criminal Procedure Code, as the Additional District Magistrate, who sanctioned the prosecution, also tried the case. The court examined the extent of "personal interest" under Section 556, noting that it includes both private and official interests. The explanation to Section 556 clarifies that a judge or magistrate is not deemed personally interested merely due to public capacity involvement. However, the illustration indicates that a person directing a prosecution in one capacity is disqualified from trying the case in another capacity. The court distinguished between passive interest (sanction) and active interest (direction), concluding that the sanction by the Additional District Magistrate did not amount to a personal interest that would disqualify him from trying the case. Therefore, the trial was not vitiated by Section 556.

2. Validity of the sanction under Section 38 of the Assam Food Grains Control Order, 1947:
The appellant contended that Shri C.K. Bhuyan was not a "Director" and thus there was no valid sanction under Section 38. The court referred to a notification in the Assam Gazette, which indicated that all Deputy Commissioners in Assam were notified as Directors for the purposes of the Order. The court found no merit in distinguishing between a Deputy Commissioner and an Additional Deputy Commissioner for this purpose. The sanction was deemed valid as it was within the authority of the notified Director.

3. Legality of forfeiture of the security bond under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The security bond was taken by the Procurement Inspector, not the court, and thus Section 514 did not apply. The court highlighted that Section 514 applies only to bonds taken by the court under the Code. The High Court's order to take action under Section 514 was erroneous. Additionally, the seized paddy was taken by a Congress M.L.A. for earthquake relief, making it unjust to ask the appellant to produce the same or similar quantity of paddy. Consequently, the order for forfeiture under Section 514 was set aside.

4. Appropriateness of the enhanced sentence:
The High Court had enhanced the sentence to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, from the initial fine of Rs. 50. The appellant's ignorance of the Assam Food Grains Control Order, 1947, was considered genuine by the Magistrate. Given this and the significant increase in the sentence, the Supreme Court found it appropriate to set aside the sentence of imprisonment while maintaining the fine of Rs. 1,000.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the trial was not vitiated under Section 556, the sanction was valid, the forfeiture under Section 514 was incorrect, and the enhanced sentence of imprisonment was inappropriate. The sentence of imprisonment was set aside, but the fine of Rs. 1,000 was upheld.