https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169741 Continued application of a special criminal procedure to pending trials after the Constitution came into force was unconstitutional where it created unequal treatment without rational nexus to the statute's object. The procedure under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947 materially departed from ordinary criminal process by dispensing with committal, limiting the evidentiary memorandum, enlarging discretion to refuse defence witnesses, and excluding transfer and revision remedies. Proceedings validly taken before the Constitution were not disturbed retrospectively, but post-Constitution use of the discriminatory procedure engaged Article 14 and could not deny accused persons ordinary procedural safeguards. The convictions and sentences therefore could not stand. en-us Tue, 20 May 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 May 2015 12:23:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169741 Continued application of a special criminal procedure to pending trials after the Constitution came into force was unconstitutional where it created unequal treatment without rational nexus to the statute's object. The procedure under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947 materially departed from ordinary criminal process by dispensing with committal, limiting the evidentiary memorandum, enlarging discretion to refuse defence witnesses, and excluding transfer and revision remedies. Proceedings validly taken before the Constitution were not disturbed retrospectively, but post-Constitution use of the discriminatory procedure engaged Article 14 and could not deny accused persons ordinary procedural safeguards. The convictions and sentences therefore could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 May 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169741