Those claims were certified as true by Henderson at Jhansi.
Henderson applied for examination of certain witnesses on companymission in England.
Simla and Jhansi were places in British India.
Satwant Singh had worked as a companytractor in Burma.
112 of 49, 333,382, 383 and 410 of 1950 and 241 of 1951, arising out of the judgment and order dated June 26, 1950, of the Punjab Special Tribunal.
There being many cases of acceptance of bribe and criminal breach of trust by public servants and cheating of Government by certain persons and cases similar to that of Satwant Singh, Ordinance No.
On Hendersons return, the trial once again became a joint trial.
In addition, it imposed fines of various amounts.
Satwant Singh was arrested on the 12th of April, 1944, at Ambala and was taken to Lahore.
Henderson had absconded to England and extradition proceedings had to be taken against him under the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881.
In all Satwant Singh was paid Rs.
He did number pass one claim because it was within the knowledge of another officer Mr. Nasa.
Satwant Singh having expressed a desire to make a companyfession, his companyfession was recorded by a First Class Magistrate on the 9th of May, 1944.
233 to 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with joinder of charges and joinder of persons in a trial.
As the result of the misrepresentation by the appellant and the false certification by Henderson the Government of Burma was induced thereby to make the payment of a large sum of money to the appellant at Lahore.
After the partition, the trial by the Special Tribunal took place at Simla.
Satwant Singh fearing that the trial of the cases against him would be delayed, requested that his cases be separated from the cases against Henderson.
The payment at Lahore to the appellant was made at his own request by cheques on the Imperial Bank of India at its Lahore Branch.
Joint trial of Henderson and the appellant without such a sanction vitiated the trial.
The State of Punjab has also appealed against the decision of the High Court that the companypulsory fines imposed were illegal.
Sections 234 and 239 of the Code companyld number be companybined to try the appellant and Henderson in a single trial for 3 offenses of cheating by the former and 3 offenses of abetment thereof by the latter.
The State had filed a petition before the High Court for the enhancement of the sentences of fine passed against Satwant Singh which was dismissed on the ground that the companypulsory fines imposed were invalid in view of the decisions of this Court in the case of Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh 1 and the case of Kedar Nath Bajoria v. The State of West Bengal 2 .
In the meantime, Satwant Singhs case was separated and the trial against him alone companytinued.
Henderson was arrested at lmphal and brought to Lahore for interrogation.
He had also submitted a claim in the name of his wife Surjit who was also arrested.
In Criminal Appeals Nos.
Some of these works were executed by the army and some were entrusted to companytractors.
This officer certified many of these claims to be companyrect and sent the papers back to Simla.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, Kartar Singh Chawla, T. M. Sen and D. Gupta, for the appellant in Cr.
Kolhapur was a place outside British India at the relevant time.
This prayer was allowed and his trials proceeded against him as the sole accused except in the trial of Cases Nos.
He was brought before the Special Tribunal in December, 1949.
The offence of cheating by the appellant companyld have been tried either at Lahore or at Simla.
124 to 129 of 1954.
100 to 105 and 124 to 129 of 1954.
By virtue of a numberification issued under the Ordinance as amended the case of Satwant Singh was allotted to the Third Special Tribunal at Lahore for trial with Henderson as his companyaccused.
124 to 129 of 1954.
Harnam Singh, Hardyal Hardy and P. C. Aggarwala, for the appellant in Cr.
R. 30 Satwant Singh has appealed against his companyviction and sentence as ordered by the High Court.
In companynection with the evacuation from Burma and the defence of that companyntry, the Government of Burma and the army had to execute certain works such as the companystruction of roads, repairs and companystruction of bridges, strengthening and repairing of old tracks and companyverting railway lines into motor roads.
100 to 105 of 1954 and Petition No.
100 to 105 of 1954 Satwant Singh is the appellant and in Criminal Appeals Nos.
54, 55 and 56 in which Henderson was a companyccused with him.
Later on, he put in further claims the total amount of which ran into several lakhs of rupees.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated August 2.
These claims were sent by the Government of Burma to Major Henderson at Jhansi in March and May, 1943, for verification as he was the officer who had knowledge of these matters.
XXIX of 1943, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, for trial of such cases was promulgated by the Governor General of India in 1943.
1954, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.
On the request of Satwant Singh cheques drawn on the Imperial Bank of India at Lahore were posted to him from Kolhapur and these cheques were encashed at Lahore.
Fifthly, it was submitted that as Burma was number a Dominion of His Majestys Government in 1943 the Ordinance did number apply.
On behalf of the appellant his companyviction was challenged on several points of law.
Imam J. IMAM J. These appeals are on a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court and they have been heard together as they rise out of a single judgment of the High Court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
It divided the fines into ordinary and companypulsory, the latter by virtue of s. 10 of the Ordinance.
31 of 1952 and Appellant in Cr.
As a result of the Japanese invasion of Burma in 1942 the Government of Burma and the Allied forces stationed there were companypelled to leave that companyntry.
The Special Tribunal imposed sentences of imprisonment ranging from one year to three and a half years in the several trials.
31 of 1952.
A police investigation followed which revealed that a large number of claims made by various persons including Satwant Singh in respect of works done for the benefit of the army were false.
Subsequently, this Ordinance was amended by Ordinance XII of 1945.
Subsequently, suspicions of the Government of Burma were aroused companycerning the many cliams made on it and it was discovered that many of them, including some of those of Satwant Singh, were false.
The State also has made a prayer that the ordinary fines imposed upon Satwant Singh may be enhanced.
He at first submitted a claim for a sum of a little over Rs.
7,44,865 12 0.
The charge framed against the appellant stated that he had companymitted the offence of cheating at Simla and Kolhapur.
WITH Petition No.
He had filed certain claims before the Government of Burma at Simla.
On the certification of the claims by Henderson, the Finance Department of the Government of Burma sanctioned the same and the Controller of the Military Claims at Kolhapur was directed to pay the amounts sanctioned.
The appellant was charged with the offence of cheating.
124 to 129 of 1954 the State of Punjab is the appellant.
20 companyld number apply as the companyviction in that case was recorded on the 24th of January, 1949, before the Constitution came into force.
Lahore was also a place at the relevant time in British India.
31 of 52 and Respondent in Cr.
The judgment of Sinha, C.J., Imam, Wanchoo and Das Gupta, JJ.,
The claims of the appellant were found to be untrue.
100 to 105 of 1954, Petition No.
October 28.
was delivered by Imam, J. Kapur, J., delivered a separate judgment.
After evacuation of Burma its Government was located at Simla.
According to the prosecution, Satwant Singh had companymitted the offence of cheating punishable under s. 420, Indian Penal Code and Henderson had abetted him in the companymission of that offence by falsely certifying Satwant Singhs claims to be true, knowing that they were false and thereby had companymitted an offence punishable under s. 420/109, Indian Penal Code.
His prayer was granted.
In August, 1942, the Government of Burma advertised inviting claims from companytractors who had executed works or had supplied materials in Burma and had number yet been paid.
In fact, he was number entitled to any payment in respect of these claims.
The misrepresentation by Satwant Singh was at Simla and the false certification of the claims as true by Henderson was at Jhansi.
