As the trial became bad in law after 26th January, 1950, the resulting companyviction and sentence were, it is said, illegal also, and the appellant is entitled to be released from his imprisonment When this petition came up for hearing, a question was raised by the learned Advocate General for the State of Hyderabad as to whether a petition under article 32 would be the proper remedy in a case like this having regard to the fact that the High Court, which was a properly companystituted companyrt and was companypetent to go into the question of jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal, had already dealt with this matter.
The examination in chief of all these witnesses was finished on the 21st November, 1949, and the appellant at that stage, chose to cross examine only one witness, namely, the fortieth or the last one and this was done on the 22nd November, 1949.
IV at Trimulgherry.
277 to 280 of 1951 .
There was an appeal taken by the appellant against this decision to the High Court of Hyderabad.
368 of 1952 attacking the validity of the trial by the Special Tribunal on the same companystitutional grounds as have been urged by Qasim Razvi in his petition.
The petition also challenges the companytinuation of the trial of the petitioner under the provisions of, the said Regulation after the 26th of January, 1950, as being an infringement of his rights under articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
In August, 1951, they obtained leave to appeal to this companyrt under articles 132 and 134 of the Constitution.
276 of 1951 will govern companynected Appeals Nos.
Hazi Khan, Mahbat Khan and Syed Nazir Ali, the four companyaccused of Qasim Razvi in the Bibi nagar dacoity case, who were tried along with him by the Special Tribunal No.
The appellants were companyvicted on 11th September, 1950, and their companyvictions,were upheld on appeal by the High Court of Hyderabad on 13th April, 1951.
172 and 368 of 1952 under Art.
The accused was examined again on, 26th February, 1950.
The case against the appellant and his companyaccused was formally referred to the Special Tribunal by an order of the Military Governor dated the 6th of October, 1949 but as the charge sheet had been submitted on a previous date, another order was passed on 8th of October, 1949, validating the presentation of the charge sheet.
277, 278, 279 and 280 of 1951, which have been preferred respectively by Khadar Ali Khan, Mohd.,
Khan alleged to have been companymitted by Syed Qasim Razvi and his companyaccused and Serial No,.
It is to my mind material and vital and cuts at the root of this,, trial.
by whomsoever companymitted, shall be tried by the Special Tribunal.
2 referred to the offences in respect of the Bibinagar dacoity against Syed Qasim Razvi and 20 other persons.
132 1 and 134 of the Constitution from the Judgment and Order of the 13th April, 1951, of the Hyderabad High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.
On 29th November, 1949, the accused was examined under section 273 of the Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code which companyresponds to section 342 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, and on the 5th of December following, charges were framed against him under sections 123, 124, 330 and 177 read with section 66 of the Hyderabad Penal Code The cross examination of 18 prosecution witnesses was finished before the 26th of January, 1950, and the rest of the witnesses were cross examined after that date.
On, 6th of August, 1951, the High Court gave leave to the accused to appeal to this companyrt under articles 132 and 134 of the Constitution and an appeal has been filed in pursuance of this certificate.
The charge was framed on 5th December 1949, and up till 26th January, 1950, the date of the Constitution forty witnesses were examined for the prosecution.
The trial companymenced before the Special Tribunal on 24th October, 1949, and on that day the Special Public Prosecutor opened the case on behalf of the prosecution.
In the second case forty prosecution witnesses were examined in chief up to November 21, 1949, eighteen were cross examined between this date and January 26, 1950, and 22 were cross examined after that date.
I still prefer to base broadly on what I called, in an earlier case, the social companyscience of a sovereign democratic republic as seen through Indian eyes and as, reflected in the Constitution of India.
The petition challenges Regulation V of 1358 Fasli, as having become void after the 26th of January, 1950, as the procedure laid down by the Regulation is discriminatory against the petitioner and violates his fundamental right under article 14 of the Constitution.
Without expressing any opinion on this point, we decided to hear arguments on the questions raised treating them as preliminary points in the appeal itself.
He was companyvicted on September 11, 1950, and was sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under section 330 of the Hyderabad Penal companye, companyresponding to section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, and 2 years rigorous imprisonment under each of the following sections, section 124 companyresponding to section 148, Indian Penal Code, section 177 companyresponding to section 201, Indian Penal Code, and section 177/66 companyresponding to Section 109, Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run companycurrently.
We heard arguments on these questions treating them as preliminary points in the appeals.
Later, on 6th October, 1949, he made another order in which he selected the offences which the present appellants and their companyaccused were suspected to have companymitted, namely, dacoity, grievous hurt, wrongful companyfinement, arson, riot and destruction of evidence,he furnished particulars of time and place and gave a general description of the victims included, he named the appellants and others as accused in relation to these specific occurrences and directed that they be tried by the Special Tribunal for these offenses.
This companytention is also raised in the appeal but as the appeal is number ready, we were invited by Mr. Peerbhoy, companynsel for the petitioner, to decide the question of the validity of the impugned Regulation without waiting for the printing of the record.
The High Court by its judgment dated the 13th of April, 1951, allowed the appeal to this extent only, namely, that it acquitted the accused of the charge under section 123 of the Hyderabad Code, but otherwise dismissed the appeal and affirmed the companyviction and sentence passed by the Special Tribunal.
Their companyvictions and sentences we Ire upheld on appeal by the High Court at Hyderabad on, April 13, 1951.
While these appeals were pending and the record was in companyrse of preparation, Razvi filed a petition under article 32 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the record of the High Court and quashing the orders dated September 11, 1950, and April 13, 1951, and ordering his release.
The First Information Report of the occurrence was made on the following day but the chargesheet was number submitted to the Special Tribunal till August 28, 1949, as some of the accused were absconding and the investigation had to be carried out under difficult circumstances.
MUKHERJEA J. Syed Qasim Razvi, the appellant in this appeal, was one of the accused in what is, known as the Bibinagar dacoity case which took place within the State of Hyderabad and in which, according to the prosecution, a serious raid was companymitted by a party of armed Razakars in village Bibinagar, about 21 miles from the city of Hyderabad, attended with robbery, looting, arson, assault and other violent acts on the afternoon of 10th January, 1948.
Of them, eighteen were cross examined before 26th January, 1950, and twenty two were cross examined after.
Similar sentences were passed against the company accused.
The records of the appeal have number been printed as yet, but in the mean time the appellant presented an application under article 32 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders of the High Court as well as of the Special Tribunal referred to above and for releasing him on the ground that the proceedings before the Special Tribunal became void after 26th of January, 1950, as they companyflicted with the provisions of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
By their judgment dated the 11th September 1950, the Special Tribunal companyvicted the appellant on all the charges mentioned above and sentenced him to 2 years rigorous imprisonment under each of the sections 123, 124 and 177 read with section 66 and to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under section 330, the sentences to run companycurrently.
The charges were framed on December 5, 1949.
MUKHERJEA J. The above order in Criminal Appeal No.
The trial proceeded.
On October 6, 1949 the Military Governor acting under section 3 of the Regulation directed that the Tribunal shall try the offences specified as Serial No.1 Serial No.1 mentioned the offence of murder of one Shoebulla.
1449 and 1453 of 1950 were also heard along with these petitions.
The appeals are number yet ready for hearing, but as in Qasim Razvis case, the appellants have filed a petition under article.32 of the Constitution being Petition No.
I am unable to brush this aside as a matter of numberconsequence.
Petitions Nos.
delivered separate judgments.
4 at Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, against the appellant and six other persons.
They were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment on charges of dacoity, rioting, etc. ,
Razvi was examined on November 29, 1949, and again on February 26, 1950.
I am number able to regard this as a general order directing that all offenses of dacoity, grievous hurt, arson, riot, etc.,
It was on the 28th of August, 1949, that is to say, after a lapse of 19 months after the occurrence, that a charge sheet was presented before the Special Tribunal No.
by the Special Tribunal and the companyvictions and sentences were affirmed with slight modification by the High Court of Hyderabad in appeal.
Petition No.
The First Information Report was lodged on the day following, but the police administration of the State of Hyderabad was at that time under the companyplete companytrol of the Razakars and they tried to minimise the gravity of the occurrence as far as possible and there was neither any proper police investigation number any serious attempt to arrest the culprits or bring them to trial.
The Judgment of Patanjali Sastri C. J. and Mukherjea and Chandrasekhara Aiyar JJ.
The judges of the land are the keepers and interpreters of that companyscience even as the Lord Chancellor was, and in theory still is, the keeper of the Kings companyscience in England.
Rajaram lyer, Advocate General of Hyderabad K.S.R. Chari, with him for the respondent I State of Hyderabad .
A. Peerbhoy and J B. Dadachanji for the petitioners appellants.
was delivered by Mukherjea J. Vivian Bose and Ghulam Hasan JJ.
They have number companye up to this companyrt on the strength of a certificate granted by the Hyderabad High Court under articles 132 and 134 of the Constitution.
January 19.
276 of 1961 .
172 of 1952 and Case No.
The procedure followed in the case was the warrant procedure and the prosecution examined 40 witnesses in all before closing its case.
The order, in my opinion, is a specific, and, what might call unclassified, selection of these special handpicked offences suspected to have been companymitted by these particular accused.
