9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of prosecution under section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Validity of sanction under section 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Specification of the Court for trial under section 197(2) and the power of appointing a Special Magistrate under section 14. 4. Appointment of a Special Magistrate and transfer of the case. Analysis: The judgment by the Supreme Court addressed a petition challenging the validity of a prosecution under section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners, including an Agricultural Demonstrator, were facing charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy, leading to financial losses for the Government of Madras. The petition sought to quash the proceedings on various grounds, including the constitutionality of section 14. The Court rejected the argument that section 14 violated the guarantee under article 14 of the Constitution, as the Special Magistrate was to conduct the trial under the normal procedure, without discriminatory practices. Regarding the validity of the sanction under section 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners contended that the sanction was invalid as it did not disclose all facts constituting the offenses, as per the Privy Council case of Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King. However, the Court noted that any deficiencies in the sanction could be rectified during the trial through specific evidence, rendering the argument premature at the current stage. The issue of specifying the Court for trial under section 197(2) and the power of appointing a Special Magistrate under section 14 was also raised. The petitioners argued that only the Government granting the sanction should specify the trial court, and the exercise of power under section 14 by another government would nullify the former's authority. The Court dismissed this argument, clarifying that the power to specify the Court under section 197(2) was discretionary and did not affect the appointment of a Special Magistrate under section 14. Additionally, a point was raised concerning the appointment of a Special Magistrate and the transfer of the case. It was contended that without a fresh notification appointing the Special Magistrate, the case could not proceed. The State informed the Court of its willingness to issue the necessary notification, rendering the objection moot. Ultimately, all points raised by the petitioners were dismissed, and the petition was rejected. The Court highlighted the importance of following proper legal procedures and discouraged direct appeals to the Supreme Court without exhausting remedies at lower courts, unless warranted by valid reasons.
|
