https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157687 The Ordinance's deeming of the Special Judge as a Court of Session attracted the Code of Criminal Procedure's appellate scheme, so an appeal lay to the Judicial Commissioner from the acquittal and the maintainability objection failed. The special procedure did not violate Article 14 because no material prejudice or arbitrary discrimination was shown, and the saving of pending proceedings did not create unequal treatment. Article 20 was not infringed because conviction is barred only where the offence was not punishable under the law actually in force at the time of the act; later retrospective adaptation or continuation of existing criminal law, including for the extraterritorial charge, did not create a new offence. The constitutional objections were rejected. en-us Fri, 22 May 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Mar 2022 11:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157687 The Ordinance's deeming of the Special Judge as a Court of Session attracted the Code of Criminal Procedure's appellate scheme, so an appeal lay to the Judicial Commissioner from the acquittal and the maintainability objection failed. The special procedure did not violate Article 14 because no material prejudice or arbitrary discrimination was shown, and the saving of pending proceedings did not create unequal treatment. Article 20 was not infringed because conviction is barred only where the offence was not punishable under the law actually in force at the time of the act; later retrospective adaptation or continuation of existing criminal law, including for the extraterritorial charge, did not create a new offence. The constitutional objections were rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 May 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157687