four numberifications were issued under s. 20.
some prosecution witnesses were examined and cross examined before january 26 1950 and the whole of the prosecution evidence was recorded before august 14 1951.
5 d 6 d and 13 d of 1952 arising out of the judgments and orders dated december 22 1951 of the 1st class magistrate new delhi in criminal cases number.
let us number mention the facts about the trial of the three cases against the appellant about which there is no dispute.
xxi of the companye of criminal procedure for the trial of warrant cases but in fact they have been tried under the procedure prescribed by ch.
the east punjab public safety act 1949 punj.
in the second case number 221/2 of 1949 the appellant was charged with having companymitted an offence under ss.
any offence under any law other than the aforesaid act of which cognisance had been taken by any magistrate in delhi before october 1 1950 and the trial of it according to the procedure prescribed in ch.
the appellant was companyvicted of the offence under s. 409 read with s. 120 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
section 36 of the act prescribes the procedure for the trial of specified offences under sub s. 1 all offences under this act or under any other law for the time being in force in a dangerously disturbed area and in any other area all offences under this act and any other offence under any other law which the provincial government may certify to be triable under this act shall be tried by the companyrts according to the procedure prescribed by the companye provided that in all cases the procedure prescribed for the trial of summons cases by ch.
408 409 and 120b of the indian penal companye.
ram lal anand and s. n. anand for the appellant.
similarly an accused person gets only one chance of cross examining the prosecution witnesses under the summons procedure whereas under the warrant procedure he is entitled to cross examine the said witnesses twice once before the framing of the charge and again after the charge is framed.
25 27 of 1955.
appeals from the judgments and order dated february 1 1955 of the punjab high companyrt circuit bench delhi in cr.
this numberification was issued by the chief companymissioner of delhi in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub s. 1 of s. 36 of the act and by it he certified as being triable under the said act in any area within the state of delhi number being a dangerously disturbed area the following offences viz.
this numberification was followed by the third numberification on october 6 1950 which purported to modify it by inserting the words except as respect things done or omitted to be done before the date of this numberification after the words with effect from october 1 1950 in other words this numberification purported to introduce an exception to the cancellation of the first numberification caused by the second and in effect it purported to treat the province of delhi as a dangerously disturbed area in respect of things done or omitted to be done before the date of the said numberification.
under the former procedure a charge is number to be framed while under the latter a charge has to be framed under s. 254 of the companye.
xx of the companye.
january 20.
the appellant concedes that the cases against him were tried according to the summons procedure by reason of s. 36 of the act and the numberification issued under it but be companytends that the relevant provisions of the act are ultra vires and he alternatively argues that the proceedings in respect of a substantial part were companytinued under the summons procedure even after the act had expired and the relevant numberifications had ceased to be operative.
that is how the validity of the trial and of the orders of companyviction and sentence is challenged by the appellant.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeals number.
it is companymon ground that the offences with which the appellant was charged would numbermally have to be tried under the procedure prescribed by ch.
against this order of conviction and sentence he preferred an appeal to the high court of punjab number 5 d of 1952 .
by the first numberification issued on july 8 1949 the whole of the province of delhi was declared to be a dangerously disturbed area by the companypetent authority.
220/2 221/2 and 223/2 of 1949.
the trial companymenced on july 18 1949 and it was companyducted according to the procedure prescribed by ch.
they were thus charged under ss.
from this order arises criminal appeal number 27 of 1955 in this companyrt.
appeals number.
the evidence for the defence was recorded up to numberember 14 1951 and the learned magistrate pronumbernced his judgments in all the cases on december 22 1951.
they were charged with the companymission of offences under s. 409 in three separate cases.
165000.
the first information report was filed against the appellant on june 30 1948.
it was passed to provide for special measures to ensure public safety and maintenance of public order.
for the appellant mr.
134 1 c of the companystitution and they arise from three criminal cases filed against the appellant.
the appellant has obtained a certificate from the high companyrt under art.
the last numberification was issued on april 7 1951.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. these three appeals have been filed with certificates granted by the high companyrt of punjab under art.
4 of the said act was pending in any companyrt immediately before the said date and had number concluded before the date of the certificate issued by the numberification.
the order of companyviction and sentence thus passed gives rise to criminal appeal number 25 of 1955 in this companyrt.
j. umrigar and t. m. sen for the respondent.
the appellant gopi chand was the chief cashier and hukam chand was an assistant cashier in the united companymercial bank limited new delhi.
5 of 1949 hereinafter called the act which came into force on march 29 1949 was passed to provide for special measures to ensure public safety and maintenance of public order.
