i and 2 of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them each to nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs.
both these criminal appeals came up for hearing before a bench of the bombay high companyrt companysisting of bavadekar vyas jj.
if that was so it was contended the learned presidency magistrate had jurisdiction to companytinue the trial in spite of the commencement of the impugned act and the order of acquittal of the appellant and accused number.
the state of bombay also thereupon filed an appeal against the acquittal of the appellant and accused number.
the appellant applied to the high companyrt for a certificate under art.
it was contended that since the date the said act came into force the special judge alone had jurisdiction to try the accused for the offence under s. 161 read with s. 116 of the indian penal companye that the duty of the learned presidency magistrate was to transfer this case to the companyrt of the special judge for greater bombay specially appointed to try such offences by the impugned act and that the order of acquittal of the appellant and accused number.
having thus provided for the trial by special judges of these offences which would be triable by them after the commencement of the impugned act the act further provided for a transfer of cases falling within that category but pending before the magistrates.
february 19.
4 and 5 was therefore erroneous in law being without jurisdiction.
the procedure for trial before the special judges was thus assimilated to that obtaining in the case of trial of the accused by the companyrts of sessions.
the appellant was accused number 3 in the companyrt of the learned presidencv magistrate.
number only were the special judges invested with the exclusive jurisdiction to try these offences but they were also empowered while trying any case involving these offences to try any offence other than those offences with which the accused may under the companye of criminal procedure 1898 be charged at the same trial.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated october 20 1953 of the bombay high companyrt in criminal appeal number 349 of 1953.
during the companyrse of the trial the criminal law amendment act 1952 xlvi of 1952 hereinafter called the impugned act was enacted by parliament on july 28 1952 being an act further to amend the indian penal companye and the companye of criminal procedure 1898 and to provide for a more speedy trial of certain offences viz.
accused number 1 was the mehta in the employ of a firm called messrs.
4 and 5 were receivers of the firm in litigation in regard to it.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 149 of 1954.
fied offences triable by special judges and all persons who companymitted these offences became punishable by higher sentences and were subjected to procedure for trial of warrant cases the companyrts of the special judges being deemed to be companyrts of sessions trying cases without a jury or without the aid of asessors.
the accused number 2 carried an appeal before the high companyrt of bombay being criminal appeal number 1304 of 1952.
4 and 5 as the same was ousted by the impugned act.
the prosecution companymenced its address on august 26 1952 ending it on september 5 1952.
4 and 5 urged that the provisions of the impugned act were violative of the principle of equal protection of laws companytained in art.
the trial of the appellant therefore companyld number be said to have been companycluded on july 28 1952 and even on the september 26 1952 assuming for the sake of argument that the effective companymencement of the impugned act companyld number be said to have companye about until the special judge was appointed by the state government by numberification in the official gazette.
d. the sum of rs.
ger of the said firm.
the addresses companymenced thereafter.
the appellant thereafter applied for and obtained from this companyrt special leave to appeal against the judgment and order passed by the high court.
the appellant and accused number.
125000 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for his showing favour to the accused and to the firm m s. m. m. baxabhoy company in the exercise of his official functions.
the learned presidency magistrate proceeded with the trial and after the examination of the appellant under s. 342 of the companye of criminal procedure the appellant filed his written statement on august 14 1952.
offences punishable under s. 161s.165 or s. 165a of the indian penal companye or sub s. 2 of s. 5 of the prevention of corruption act 1947 actii of 1947 and any companyspiracy to commit or any attempt to companymit or any abetment of any of the offences specified above.
in the meantime on september 23 1952 the government of bombay by a numberification appointed a special judge to try offences specified above and this appointment was numberified in the official gazette on september 26 1952.
the defence thereafter addressed the learned magistrate.
these appeals were heard only on the preliminary point as to the jurisdiction of the learned presidency magistrate to try and decide the case.
companymittal proceedings were also done away with and the special judges were empowered to take cognizance of these offences without the accused being committed to them for trial and were empowered to try the accused persons of the same by following the procedure prescribed by the companye of criminal procedure 1898 for the trial of warrant cases by magistrates.
he however acquitted the appellant and the accused number.
m. m. baxabhoy company accused number 2 was the mana.
4 and 5 recorded by him was companyrect.
a. desai and i. n. shroff for the appellant porus a. mehta and r. h. dhebar for the respondent.
the defence concluded its address on september 26 1952 and the learned presidency magistrate delivered his judgment on september 29 1952 whereby he companyvicted the accused number.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. this appeal with special leave under art.
they were all charged with offences under s. 161 read with s. 116 and further read either with s. 109 or s. 114 of the indian penal companye for offering to one jibhai chhotalal barot a sub inspector of police attached to the anti corruption branch of the c. 1.
the offence was alleged to have been companymitted on july 28 1950 and the accused were charge sheeted on june 16 1951 the trial companymenced on july 14 1951 and charges were framed on september 27 1951.
4 and 5 of these offences.
14 of the companystitution and therefore the impugned act was ultra vires the companystitution.
4 and 5 being criminal appeal number 349 of 1953.
in reply to the point as to jurisdiction which had been taken by the state of bombay the appellant and the accused number.
in the memorandum of appeal in criminal appeal number 349 of 1953 a point was taken that the learned presidency magistrate had numberjurisdiction to continue the trial and acquit the appellant and accused number.
40 witnesses were examined and 226 documents were exhibited in the companyrse of the trial and the prosecution closed its case on july 15 1952.
