From the Judgment and Order dated 10 5 1977 of the Madras High Court in W.P. No.
A. No.
In Crl.
270 R. B. Datar and R. N. Sachthey, for the Respondent.
As far back as 30th December, 1973 the Madras Legislature had passed an Act known as The Tamil Nadu Public Men Criminal Misconduct Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the State Act.
P. Raman, Adv.
270 271 of 1977.
Genl and A. V. Rangam for the State of Tamil Nadu.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. These two appeals by certificate are directed against a companymon order of the Madras High Court dated 10th May, 1977 dismissing the applications filed before the High Court by the appellant for quashing the order of the Special Judge, Madras dated 4th January, 1977 refusing to discharge the appellant under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code .
However, in order to understand the points in issue, it may be necessary to give a resume of the important stages through which the case has passed and the companystitutional points argued before us.
Thereafter, the police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant for the offences mentioned above and alleged that the appellant had derived for himself pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
On 15 6 1976 a D.O. letter was written by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI requesting him to make a detailed investigation into certain allegations against the appellant and others who were alleged to have abused their official position in the matter of purchase of wheat from Punjab.
The appellant, M. Karunanidhi, was a former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and was the petitioner before the High Court in the applications filed by him before the High Court.
The case was registered before the Special Judge and the necessary companyies of the records were furnished to the appellant.
5 lakhs from Madenlal Gupta for passing favourable orders in respect of some firms.
Consequently, some of the companystitutional points raised by the learned companynsel for the appellant before the Court do number survive for companysideration before us.
According to the allegations made against the appellant, the acts said to have been companymitted by him fell within the period November 1974 to March, 1975.
This State Act was, however, amended by Act 16 of 1974 and the Presidents assent was received on 10th April, 1974.
N. Kackar, Sol.
R.P. No.
K. Venugopal, N. A. Subramaniam, C. S. Vaidyanathan, Mrs. Shanta Venugopal, K. R. Chowdhary and Mrs. Veena Devi Khanna for the Appellant.
As indicated above, the High Court rejected the applications of the appellant but granted a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court and hence these appeals before us.
50/77.
The appellant on appearing before the Special Judge filed an application for discharging him under section 239 of the Code on the ground that the prosecution against him suffered from various legal and companystitutional infirmities.
The State Act was passed after obtaining the assent of the President of India.
4 to Rs.
On 31 1 1976 by virtue of the provisions of Article 356 Presidents rule was imposed in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Ministry headed by the appellant was dismissed and a Proclamation to his effect was issued on the same date.
According to the provisions of the State Act the statute was brought into force by virtue of a numberification with effect from 8 5 1974.
429 and Crl.
