TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 offended Article 14 of the Constitution by creating an impermissible classification and special procedure for offences of bribery and corruption; (ii) Whether, on the commencement of the Act, the Presidency Magistrate was divested of jurisdiction in a pending case and the case was liable to be forwarded for retrial before the Special Judge under section 10 of the Act.
Issue (i): Whether the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 offended Article 14 of the Constitution by creating an impermissible classification and special procedure for offences of bribery and corruption.
Analysis: The Act grouped offences punishable under sections 161, 165 and 165-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as offences of bribery and corruption. The Court held that such offenders formed a distinct class, the classification was founded on an intelligible differentia, and the special procedure, exclusive trial by Special Judges, and elimination of committal proceedings were all directed to the object of securing a speedier trial. The classification therefore bore a rational relation to the legislative purpose and did not amount to hostile discrimination.
Conclusion: The Act was not violative of Article 14 and was constitutionally valid.
Issue (ii): Whether, on the commencement of the Act, the Presidency Magistrate was divested of jurisdiction in a pending case and the case was liable to be forwarded for retrial before the Special Judge under section 10 of the Act.
Analysis: The case was pending on the date the Act came into force because the trial had not concluded and further steps, including the accused's examination, written statement and addresses, were still to follow. Section 7 conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Special Judges for the specified offences, and section 10 required pending cases before Magistrates to be forwarded to the Special Judge. The Magistrate, therefore, had no jurisdiction to continue the trial after commencement of the Act, and the subsequent proceedings before him were without jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The retrial order was ; the case had to be tried by the Special Judge and the acquittal by the Magistrate could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the special legislation was upheld as valid and the pending prosecution was required to proceed before the Special Judge under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A statute creating a special forum and special procedure for a defined class of offences is valid under Article 14 if the class is intelligible and the classification has a rational nexus with the object of achieving a speedier trial; once such a statute makes the special forum exclusively competent, pending cases within its scope must be transferred and further proceedings before the earlier court are without jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
