Krishan Lal Dhawan and ·another v. Delhi Administration

(in Cr. A. No. 1 !!6/60). N. S. Uindra, I. M. Lal and A.G. Ratna.pml.·hi for the aprwllant (in Cr. A. Ko. I!l7 /fl0). If. R. Khanna., R. Ji. Dhebar and P. D. Menon, for the respoude11ts. 1962. February 15. The Judgment of the Court was dcliverPd 0 by KAPl"H, J.-Thrse two appeals are directed agoainst the judgm<'nt and ordn 1Jf the Punjab High Court confirmin~ the con~ietion of the appel­ lants under sH.120 B ancl 421l; Indian Penal Cod<>, and s.5(1 )(cl) rPad with s. 5(:2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194-7; and sentmwing each of them to an aggregate Henknce of six mrmth8' rigorous i m prisonmrn t. It is unnecessarv to set. out the fac:ts in cle­ tnil but to put them briefly. 'J he app"1lant; Albert llfosscs was the Princ:ipal incharge of the Rehabilitation Cc>ntrc, i\falviya Nagar and Kalkaji - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 211 under the Ministry of Rehabilitation. The appel· !ant, K. L. Dhawan, was a partner in the firm named M/s. Dhawan & Co. apd they supplied a surface plate for a sum of Rs. 1,950/- to the Works Centre of which the a,ppellant Albert Moses was the Principal. The trial of the appellants and R. P. Dhawan, who has been acquitted, commenced in the Court of Mr. Jawala Das, Special Judge, Delhi, and he heard the case from the date of the institution of the proceedings on May 21, 1956 to October 26, 1956. He heard the prosecution evidence which was closed on October 2n, 1956. The case was then ta.ken up by Mr. P. D. Sharma, Special Judge, Delhi, from December 20, 1956. He cx:amined defence witnesses and finally convicted the appellants of the offences already mentioned and acquitted R. P. Dhawan. Against the conviction and sentence .an appeal was taken to the High Court but the conviction was upheld and also the senten~es and against that jud~ment and order these two appeals by special le1tve have been brought by the two con· victed persons. The sole question which has been raised in this Court is th1tt in view of the fact the trial commenced before one Special Judge and another Special Judge took up thf' proceedings after December 20, 1956, the proceedings are :qot competent and, therefore, the conviction ahd the s<Jntence cannot be upheld. Counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court in Payara Lal v. State of Punjab(') in which it was held that "s. 350 is not applicable when one Special Judge is succeeded by another". In that view of the matter Mr. P.D. Sharma was not Competent to proceed with the trial from the stage at which it was left by Mr . • Jawala Das. rI) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 328. J96Z Krishan Lal Dhawan v. Delhi Adrninistratian Kapur J. 1961 Kris/um I.at DluJwan y, D1/lri Admini1lration Kapur J. 212 SUPRE1\fR COURT REPORTS [Hl62] Rt'PP. Counsel for the respondent rcliPs on sn h·s.(3) of s. 8 of tho Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act 4n of Hl52) which makes tbe provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far' aR th<:>V are not in­ consistont with that Act, a.pp.licable to pro<'ecrlings before a. Special .Judge and a )so provides t.hat a Special .Judge shall be deemed to be a Ccurt of Session when trying a case under the Criminal Law Amendment Act (46 of l!J52). Ilnt this question was considered in thf' case d1>cidcd hy this Court in P11aralal's wse~') in whi<'h it was held that sub-s.(3) of s. 8 of Act 46 of 1952 did not contemplate thats. 350 of tho Criminal Proeedun• Code becomes npplirable to proceedings hefore a Special Judge. It was also held in the case that th" amend­ ment made in the Criminal Law Amendmr·nt Act by Act 2 of 1956 by which s. 3(a) was adrled to it making the provisions of s.:{50 of the Code appJi. cable to a trial by Special Judg<•s has Iio retro­ spective effect. In this view of the matter, tho conviction of the appellants must. therefore be set a.Ride. The case will be disposed of in accordance with law. App ra/ ul/cu·rd. (I) [1%2] 3 ~.C.R. 328 .