1961 (8) TMI 35 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal granted, conviction voided, retrial ordered due to judge's lack of authority.

PAYARE LAL Versus STATE OF PUNJAB

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered a retrial as the judge lacked authority to proceed based on evidence from ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to trials conducted by a special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.2. Competency of S. Jagjit Singh to deliver judgment based on evidence recorded by his predecessor.3. Whether the defect in the trial could be cured under Section 537 of the CrPC.4. Retrospective applicability of the amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 350 of the CrPC:The primary issue was whether Section 350 of the CrPC, which allows a succeeding magistrate to act on evidence recorded by his predecessor, applied to trials conducted by a special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court noted that Section 8 of the Act required a special Judge to follow the procedure prescribed by the CrPC for the trial of warrant cases by magistrates. However, it was debated whether this included Section 350. The Court observed that Section 350 is a statutory departure from the general principle that a judge must decide a case based on evidence he has personally heard. The Court concluded that Section 350 of the CrPC was not applicable to a special Judge under Section 8(1) of the Act, as it specifically applies to magistrates and not to a Court of session or a special Judge.2. Competency of S. Jagjit Singh:The Court addressed whether S. Jagjit Singh had the authority to decide the case based on evidence recorded by his predecessor, S. Narinder Singh. The Court held that S. Jagjit Singh had no authority under the law to proceed with the trial from the stage left by his predecessor. The conviction by S. Jagjit Singh was deemed incompetent as he had not heard the evidence himself, thus violating the principle that a judge must hear the entire case.3. Curability of the Defect under Section 537 of the CrPC:The Court examined whether the defect in the trial could be considered a mere irregularity curable under Section 537 of the CrPC. The Court referred to the Privy Council's decision in Pulukuri Kotayyam v. King Emperor, which distinguished between irregularities that could be cured and those that could not. The Court concluded that the defect in this case was not a mere irregularity but a matter of competency, making Section 537 inapplicable. The trial was conducted in a manner different from that prescribed by the Code, thus rendering it invalid.4. Retrospective Applicability of the Amendment:The Court considered the amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which expressly made Section 350 of the CrPC applicable to proceedings before a special Judge. The amendment came after the decision by S. Jagjit Singh and was not expressly made retrospective. The Court held that even if the amendment was procedural and presumed to apply to pending actions, it did not assist the respondent's contention. The Court did not express an opinion on whether the amended Act would apply to proceedings commenced before the amendment.Conclusion:The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and ordered a retrial according to law. The Court emphasized that a proper trial must be conducted by a judge who has heard the entire evidence, and the defect in the trial could not be cured under Section 537 of the CrPC. The case was remanded for retrial, considering the principles and legal provisions discussed.