1953 (5) TMI 12 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the various acts in respect of which the appellants were convicted constituted offences in this area only from the date when Ordinance No. XLVIII of 1949 was passed or were already so prior thereto? Held that - There is therefore no substance in the argument that the amendment of section 21, Indian Penal Code, by Ordinance No. XLVIII of 1949 brought about any change in the situation of the first appellant as a public servant. (1) The appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from the acquittal by the Special Judge was competent; (2) The trial of the appellants under the Vindhya Pradesh Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Ordinance No. V of 1949 is not open to objection under article 14 of the Constitution; (3) The criminal law relating to the offences charged against the appellants at the time of their commission was substantially the same as that which obtained at the time of the convictions and sentences by the appellate court. This was so both in respect of offences committed within the limits of the State of Vindhya Pradesh and those committed outside it ; (4) The law relating to the offence committed by the first appellant outside the State of Vindhya Pradesh (at New Delhi) was perfectly within the competence of the appropriate legislative authority at the relevant time; and (5) Consequent on 3 and 4 above, the objection to the convictions and sentences of the appellants ,under article 20 is not sustainable.

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from the acquittal by the Special Judge.
2. Validity of the trial under the Vindhya Pradesh Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Ordinance No. V of 1949 concerning Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Constitutionality of the convictions under Article 20 of the Constitution.
4. Legislative competence concerning the extra-territorial application of the law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Appeal to the Judicial Commissioner:
The primary issue was whether an appeal lay to the Judicial Commissioner from the acquittal by the Special Judge. The argument was based on the construction of the Vindhya Pradesh Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Ordinance No. V of 1949. Section 5(2) of the Ordinance stated that the Code of Criminal Procedure, as adapted in Vindhya Pradesh, applied to the proceedings of a Special Court, deeming the Special Judge's court as a Court of Session. The court concluded that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to the right of appeal (sections 410 and 417) applied to the proceedings of a Special Court, thereby making the appeal competent.

2. Validity of the Trial under Ordinance No. V of 1949 (Article 14):
The appellants argued that their trial under Ordinance No. V of 1949 was discriminatory and hence unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court noted that the trial commenced before the Constitution came into effect and continued after it. The court found no material prejudice in the procedure followed, as the adapted Criminal Procedure Code was already in force before the trial commenced. The saving clause in Section 4 of Act No. XXX of 1950 allowed the continuation of pending proceedings, ensuring no discrimination or prejudice. Thus, the objection under Article 14 was dismissed.

3. Constitutionality of the Convictions under Article 20:
The appellants contended that their convictions were based on an ex post facto law, violating Article 20 of the Constitution. The court examined whether the acts charged as offenses were criminal under the law in force at the time of their commission. It was determined that the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, as adapted, were in force in Vindhya Pradesh before the enactment of Ordinance No. XLVIII of 1949. The court held that the phrase "law in force" in Article 20 referred to the law factually in existence at the time of the commission of the offense, not a law deemed to be in force retrospectively. Therefore, the convictions were not in violation of Article 20.

4. Legislative Competence Concerning Extra-Territorial Application:
The appellants challenged the legislative competence of the Rajpramukh to enact laws with extra-territorial application. The court analyzed the historical context and the legislative authority of the Rajpramukh under the integration Covenant and the Instrument of Accession. It was established that the rulers of the native States, including Rewa, had the authority to enact extra-territorial laws concerning their subjects. The court found that the Rajpramukh's legislative power was not curtailed by the Instrument of Accession, and sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Penal Code and section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code were validly in force. Consequently, the conviction for the offense committed outside Vindhya Pradesh (in New Delhi) was upheld.

Conclusion:
1. The appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from the acquittal by the Special Judge was competent.
2. The trial under the Vindhya Pradesh Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Ordinance No. V of 1949 did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. The criminal law at the time of the commission of the offenses was substantially the same as at the time of the convictions, and the convictions did not violate Article 20.
4. The legislative authority for extra-territorial application of the law was within the competence of the appropriate legislative authority.

Order:
The appeal was directed to be posted for consideration on the merits.

← Previous Next →