1997 (3) TMI 636 - HC - Indian Laws

Court partially allows writ challenging U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983. Mandamus issued against specific Act provisions.

The court partly allowed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the U.P Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983. It issued a writ of ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the U.P Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983.2. Applicability of the Act to offenses committed before its enforcement.3. Violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.4. Discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.5. Procedural fairness and retrospective application of the Act.6. Maintainability of the writ petition.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of the U.P Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983:The petitioner challenged the constitutional vires of the U.P Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983, arguing that it created new offenses, provided greater punishment for existing offenses, and laid down a different procedure for trial, which violated her fundamental rights under Article 20(1) of the Constitution.2. Applicability of the Act to Offenses Committed Before Its Enforcement:The petitioner contended that the crimes giving rise to the sessions trials were committed before the enforcement of the Act, which came into force on October 22, 1981. The court examined the real import of the guarantee enshrined in Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which protects against ex post facto laws.3. Violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution:The court analyzed the constitutional guarantee under Article 20(1), which prohibits conviction for an act not an offense at the time it was committed and against infliction of a greater penalty than that provided under the law in force at the time of the offense. The court referred to U.S. Supreme Court decisions and international conventions to interpret Article 20(1) broadly and liberally. The court concluded that the Act's provisions, such as Section 12(b), 13, 14, 15, 16, and items (ii) to (viii) of the Schedule, violated Article 20(1) as they aggravated the degree of crime, increased punishment, and deprived the accused of substantial rights.4. Discrimination Under Article 14 of the Constitution:The petitioner argued that the Act was discriminatory as it applied different procedures to offenses committed in dacoity-affected areas compared to other areas. The court held that the Act was not discriminatory as it aimed to curb the commission of scheduled offenses effectively and provided for speedy trials. The avoidance of committal proceedings did not cause any prejudice to the accused and was consistent with other statutes like the Essential Commodities Act and Prevention of Corruption Act.5. Procedural Fairness and Retrospective Application of the Act:The court noted that statutes dealing with procedural matters are presumed to be retrospective unless textually inadmissible. However, the court found that the Act's provisions, which deprived the accused of substantial rights and aggravated punishment, were not merely procedural and thus could not be applied retrospectively to offenses committed before the Act's enforcement.6. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:The court rejected the contention that the petitioner could not challenge the Act's vires before her trial commenced. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to challenge the Act at this stage as the injury caused by its application could not be rectified in an appeal against the final judgment. The court also dismissed the objection regarding the non-disclosure of an application pending before the Supreme Court, stating that the petitioner was not guilty of concealing any material fact.Judgment:The writ petition was partly allowed. The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Special Judge, Kanpur Dehat, not to apply or enforce certain provisions of the U.P Dacoity Affected Areas Act to the petitioner and not to charge or convict her for offenses described in items (ii) to (viii) of the Schedule to the Act for the sessions trials in question. The stay order was vacated.