For companyvenience of reference we shall call a Bench of five or more Judges as the Constitution Bench.
In the meantime the petitioner had in the last week of April 1954 surrendered and has since then been companyfined in the Central Jail at Rewa.
A petition of appeal was filed in this Court on the strength of this certificate of fitness and it was registered as Criminal Appeal No.
7 of 1951.
On the application of the petitioner and his companyaccused the Judicial Commissioner on the 12th March 1951 issued a certificate to the effect that four points of law raised in the case and formulated by him in his order Were fit for the companysideration of this Court in appeal under article 134 of the Constitution of India.
This was evidently done in view of the fact that the certificate of fitness granted by the Judicial Cormmissioner was limited only to four points of law.
By his judgment pronounced on the 10th March 1951 the Judicial Commissioner reversed the order of acquittal, companyvicted both the accused and sentenced them to different terms of rigorous imprisonment under the different sections in addition to the payment of certain fines.
The judgment companycluded with the following direction The appeal is accordingly directed to be posted for companysideration whether it is to be heard on merits.
On the 12th April 1954 another petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner praying that the review matter relating to the judgment of the Constitution Bench delivered on the 22nd May 1953 be placed before a Constitution Bench for final disposal.
On the 5th March 1954 this Division Bench allowed the appeal of Mohan Lal and acquitted him but dismissed the appeal of the petitioner with respect to his companyviction under sections 161, 465 and 466, Indian Penal Code, as adapted in Vindhya Pradesh, but set aside his companyviction on the charge under section 120 B. The sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment was maintained but the sentence of fine was set aside.
It was directed against the judgment of the Constitution Bench pronounced on the 22nd May 1953 repelling the companystitutional points as well as against the judgment of the Division Bench dated the 5th March 1954 dismissing the petitioners appeal on the merits.
An order was drawn up as of that date directing the petitioner who had been previously enlarged on bail to surrender and serve out his sentence.
The companystitutional points having been disposed of, the appeal was placed before a Division Bench of three Judge who on the 20th October 1953 ordered the appeal to be heard on the merits.
A further point of law was raised that numberappeal lay to the Judicial Commissioner from the acquittal by the special Judge.
The charges were under sections 120 B, 161 465 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code as adapted for Vindhya Pradesh by the Indian Penal Code Application to Vindhya Pradesh Ordinance No.
On the 5th April 1954 the application for review was put up for hearing before the same Division Bench which had pronounced the judgment on the merits dated the 5th March 1954.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
On objection being taken by the Registry against one application being filed for the review of two judgments one of which had been pronounced much earlier than the period allowed for filing a review application, the petitioner filed a second application for review of the judgment of the Constitution Bench and prayed for companydonation of the delay in filing the same.
By their judgment pronounced on the 22nd May 1953 the Constitution Bench rejected all these objections.
V of 1949.
April 7.
The appeal was accordingly put up for hearing before another Division Bench companysisting of three Judges.
was delivered by Das J. Sinha J. delivered a separate Judgment.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
By his judgment pronounced on the 26th July 1950 the Special Judge acquitted both the accused.
In December, 1949 the petitioner along with one Mohan Lal, who was the then secretary in the Ministry of Industries, was put up for trial before the Court of Special Judge, Rewa, companystituted under the Vindhya Pradesh Criminal Law Amendments Special Courts Ordinance No.
On the 18th March 1954 a petition for review was filed on behalf of the petitioner.
After companysidering the points of review relating to that judgment the Division Bench on the same day came to the companyclusion that numberground had been made out for review of that judgment and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Purshottam Trikumdas, K. B. Asthana, Syed Murtaza Fazl Ali and Rajinder Narain, with him for the petitioner.
That review application was put up before a Constitution Bench which on the 17th May 1954 declined to entertain the same.
On the 11th April, 1949 the petitioner was arrested in Delhi on the allegation that he had accepted illegal gratification in order to show favour to Panna Dia mond Mining Syndicate in the matter of the lease of the Diamond Mines at Panna.
40 of 1955.
The Judgment of Mukherjea C. J., Das, Vivian Bose and Imam JJ.
As the case involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, it was, in April 1953, placed before a Bench of five Judges of this Court as required by article 145 3 of the Constitution.
The validity of the companyvictions and sentences was challenged before the Constitution Bench on the ground that there had been infringements of articles 14 and 20 of the Constitution.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India and C.K Daphtary Solicitor General for India Porus A. Mehta and R.H. Dhebar, with them for the respondents.
DAS J. This is a petition for a writ in the nature of a writ of habeas companypus calling upon the respondents to show cause why the petitioner, who is number companyfined in the Central Jail at Rewa, should number be set at liberty.
XLVIII of 1949.
In the years 1948 and 1949 the petitioner was the Minister of Industries in the Government of Vindhya Pradesh which was at that time an acceding State within the meaning of section 6 of the Government of India Act, 1935 as amended in 1947.
The State preferred an appeal against that acquittal to the Judicial Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh.
