LexANANT GOPAL SHEOREY versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
; r • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 919 at Bangalore. The proceedings will acqordingly be z958 remitted to the said tribunal. The appellant will d f h The State of pay the cost of reman in any event. Costs o t e Mysore present hearing of the appeal will be costs in the v. appeal. The Workers of We would like to add that Mr. Sanyal has agreed Gold Mines without prejudice that the appellant will -pay to the . -. d t fift d b . t d th . l . Ga;endragadkar J. respon en s een ays as10 wage owar s e1r c aim for bonus during the relevant years. Gase remanded. AN ANT GOP AL SHEOREY v. THE STATE OF BOMBAY (B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM and J. L. KAPUR JJ.) Criminal trial-Amendment in procedure during pendency of trial-If retrospective-Code of Criminal Procedure (V of r898), s. 342 A-Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act (26 of r955), S. II6. A complaint was filed against the appellant on January 13, 1953, and the Special Magistrate trying him commenced the recording of evidence on July 4, 1955· During the trial the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act (26 of 1955) came into force on January 2, 1956, which introduced s. 342 A in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant made an appli- cation to the Magistrate claiming the right to appear as a wit- ness on his own behalf under s. 342 A in disproof of the charges made against him. The Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that s. 342 A 'could not be applied to pending proceed- . ings which would be according to the procedure laid down in the unamended Code : Held, that on a plain construction of s. n6eof the amending Act which provided for procedure to be followed in pending cases s. 342 A was clearly applicable in such cases. Under the general law also a change in procedure operates retrospec- tivelJ::. CRIMINAL APPELLATE . JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 178of1957. - II7 May 22, • Anant Gopal Sheorey v. The State of Bombay Kapur]. • 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959) Appeal by special leave from the order dated May 28, 1956, of the former Nagpur High Court in Criminal Revision No. 150 of 1956 arising out of the order dated February 2, 1956, of Shri K. L. Pandey, Special Magistrate at Nagpur in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1955. R. Patnaik, for the appellant. S. N. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 1958. May 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J.-This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Nagpur confirming the decision of the Special Magistrate disallowing the application of the appellant to give evidence as a witness under s. 342A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Advocate"-General of Madhya Pradesh, on Jan- uary 13, 1953, filed a complaint against the appellant and three others under s. 282 of the Indian Companies Act and ss. 465 and 4 77 A of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings commenced in 1954 before a Magistrate but on May 18, 1955, they were transferred to a Special Magistrate who commenced the recording of evidence on July 4, 1955. On August 12, 1955, the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act (26 of 1955) received the assent of the President and came into force on January 2, 1956. In this judgment it will be referred to as the Amending Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure as the Code. On January 14, 1956, the appellant made an application to the Magistrate claiming the right to appear as a witness on his own behalf under s. 342A of the amended Code "in dis- proof of the charges made against him ". His applica- tion was disIJJissed and so was his revision to the High . Court of Nagpur which held : "While it must be conceded that the wording of clause (c) as also the other clauses of section 116 of the amending Act could have been put in simpler and more direct . language, its ingenuous circumlocution ·cannot be allowed to cloak its true meaning or to ' permit the conl'!truction which the applicant seeks to ,.. I • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 921 " put upon it. The language used does not justify hold- ing that when the statute says "this Act" it means Anant Gopal only "some of the provisions of this Act". Sheorey Thus the High Court was of the opinion that the pro- v. ceedings pending before the Special Magistrate would · The State of be according to the procedure laid down in the Bombay unamended Code and the appellant could not there- fore appear as a witness under s. 342A of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.