Jai Gopal Sethi, C. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, for the appellant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 25, 1958, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The case was thereupon heard by a bench of that High, Court companystituted by Gurnam Singh and Mehar Singh JJ.
He also held that what S. Jagjit Singh had done was number a matter of mere irregularity curable under s. 537 of the Code.
clerk of the Tehsil Office, were prosecuted for offences under s.5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
He,, however, acquitted the other accused Bishan Chand giving him the benefit of doubt.
The accused appealed against their companyviction to the High Court of Punjab.
The trial companymenced before S. Narinder Singh the special Judge, Patiala.
He and Bishan Chand, a Patwar.
S. Jagjit Singh did number recall the witnesses and hear the evidence over again, but proceeded without any objection from either side, with the trial from the stage at which his predecessor had left it and having heard the arguments of the advocates for the parties, delivered his judgment companyvicting both the accused of the offences with which they had been charged and passed certain sentences on them.
The matter was then referred to Passey J., who agreed with Gurnam Singh J. On the question of s. 537 of the Code, Gurnam Singh and Passey JJ.
August 30.
The appeals were thereafter heard on the merits by Tek Chand J. who upheld the companyviction of the appellant but reduced the sentence passed on him.
240 of 1960.
The appeals came to be heard by Mehar Singh J., who,, though numberpoint had been taken by the accused, himself felt companysiderable difficulty as to whether Jagjit Singh had the power to decide the case on the evidence recorded by his predecessor and referred the matter to a larger bench taking the view that if the companyrse followed was defective, the defect would be one of jurisdiction of the Court and companyld number be cured by the companysent of parties.
Gurnam Singh J. held that s. 350 of the Code applied to the trial before a special Judge in view of s. 8 1 of the Act and under the terms of s. 350, which we will later set out, S. Jagjit Singh was entitled to proceed on the evidence recorded by his predecessor Narinder Singh, while Mehar Singh J., was of the opinion that s. 8 1 of the Act did number make s. 350 of that Code applicable to such a trial.
who took different views.
S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, for respondent.
114 of 1954.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by SARKAR, J. The appellant Payare Lal was the Tehsildar of Patiala.
He heard the evidence but before he companyld deliver a judgment he was transferred and was succeeded by Jagjit Singh.
The appellant has number companye up to this Court in further appeal with special leave.
