TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the District Magistrate had authority to tender pardon to the approver in a case triable by the Special Judge; (ii) whether the absence of a test identification parade made the identification evidence inadmissible; (iii) whether the charge framed under multiple offences contravened the procedural requirement and vitiated the trial; (iv) whether the conviction under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was sustainable.
Issue (i): whether the District Magistrate had authority to tender pardon to the approver in a case triable by the Special Judge.
Analysis: The statutory scheme treated the Court of Special Judge, for purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, as a Court of Session. The power to tender pardon under section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was therefore available to the District Magistrate in relation to such a case. The fact that the Special Judge also had power to tender pardon did not exclude the concurrent power of the District Magistrate.
Conclusion: The pardon was validly tendered and the approver's evidence was admissible.
Issue (ii): whether the absence of a test identification parade made the identification evidence inadmissible.
Analysis: Failure to hold a test identification parade did not render in-court identification inadmissible. It affected only the weight of the evidence, which remained for the courts of fact to assess. On the record, the witnesses who knew the accused were entitled to be believed, and no exceptional ground was shown for interference.
Conclusion: The identification evidence was not inadmissible and the objection failed.
Issue (iii): whether the charge framed under multiple offences contravened the procedural requirement and vitiated the trial.
Analysis: Separate charges ought to have been framed, but the irregularity was cured by section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because no prejudice was established. The objection had also been abandoned at the trial stage, and the accused could not later rely on the form of the charge to impeach the conviction.
Conclusion: The irregularity in framing the charge did not vitiate the trial.
Issue (iv): whether the conviction under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was sustainable.
Analysis: The findings below established that the appellants enabled the escape from lawful custody and received illegal gratification for that role. The Court found no sufficient reason to displace the concurrent findings of guilt.
Conclusion: The conviction under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantial grounds, and the convictions and sentences were maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: In a case triable by a Special Judge deemed to be a Court of Session, the District Magistrate retained authority to tender pardon under section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and procedural irregularities in identification or framing of charge would not defeat a conviction absent prejudice or a showing that the conviction was otherwise unsustainable.
TaxTMI 
