ASGARALI NAZARALI SINGAPORAWALLA versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 678 · Decided: 19-02-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

fg57 
V. C. Ii. H?U Strvic1 
Ltd. 
" 
Tht Re-gionttl 
Transport 
Au.tlwritJ 
Coimbatore 
VuJoatarama 
Ayy11r].· 
February 1 g, 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(i957] 
way of appeal against it, and that had not been done. 
We are of opinion that the decision in 
Veerappa Pillai 
v. Raman & Raman Ltd. ( 1
) is of no assistance 
to the 
appellant. 
In the result, we affitm the decision of the High 
Court bot,'1 on the gr.ound th3t the renewal dated June 
23, 1955, is a continuation 
of the permit granted 
on 
December 3, 1952, 
and 
must fall to the ground when 
that stood finally set aside 
by the 
judgment 
of the 
High Court in Writ Appeal No. 32 of 1954 dated March 
21, 1956, and on the ground 
that it was an implied 
condition of that renewal that it was to be subject to 
the decision of the 
High 
Court in that appeal, and that 
in the event which had happened, it had ceased to be 
effective. 
These appeals fail, and are 
dismissed 
with costs in 
Civil Appeal No. 323 of 1956. 
Apf!eals dismissed .. 
ASGARALI. NAZARALI SINGAPORA WALLA 
"· 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
(BHAGWATI, 
]AGANNADHAOAS, 
JAFER 
IMAM, 
GOVINDA 
MENON and J. L. KAPUR JJ.) 
Crirninal trial-Enactment providinK for speedy trial-Specified 
offences made tn'able only by Special fudges empotvcred td atvard 
heavier sentences-If violates equality' befo1'e the larv-Pendency of-
C.'iminal !.Aw Amendment Act, (XLVI of 
1952)-Constitution of 
India, Art. 14. 
The appeilant 
and four others 
were being tried before the 
Presidency Magistrate, Bombay for charges under s. 161 read with 
116 and further read with s. 109 or s. 114 of the 
Indian Penal 
Code. 
During the pendency of the trial 
the Criminal 
Law 
Amendment Act, 1952 (XLVI of 1952) was enacted by Parliament 
and came into force on July 28, 1952. The Act provided for ,the 
trial of all offences punishable unc!er ss. 161, 165 or 165-A, of the 
Indian Penal Code, or sub-s. (2) of s. 5, of the 
Prevention 
of 
Corruption Act, 1947 exclusively by Special Judges and directed 
the transfer of all such trials pending on the date of the coming 
(1) [1952] S.C.R. 583. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT lU:PORTS 
679 
into force of the Act to. Special Judges. 
The Presidency Magistrate 
continued the trial and acquitted the appellant. 
Upon appeal by 
the State 
Government, the High Court held that from the date of 
the commencement of the Act the Presidency Magistrate lost all 
jurisdiction to continµe the trial and . ordered a retrial 
by the 
Special. Judge. 
It was contended that the 
Act was void as it 
violated Art. 14 ~f the C:onstitution :\_nd consequently could not 
affect the jurisdicuon of the Presidency 
Magistrate to continue 
the trial. 
Held, that the Act did not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
The Legislature classified the offences punishable under ss. 161, 
165 or 165-A of the Indian Penal Code or sub-s. 2 of s. 5 of the 
Prevention of Corruption ·Act, 1947 in one group or category. They 
were offences relating to bribery or corruption by public servants 
and were appropriately classified in, one group of category. 
The 
classification was 
founded on an intelligible differentia 
which 
distinguished the offenders thus grouped together from those left 
out of the group. This intelligible differentia had rational relation 
to the object sought to be achieved by the Act, the object being 
to provide for speedier trials of the said offences. 
Bribery and 
corruption having been rampant 
~nd the need for weeding them 
out having 
been 
urgently felt, it was necessary to enact thr 
measure for the purpose of eliminating all possible delay in bring-
ing the offenders to book. 
The State of Bombay v. F. 
N. Balsara, (1951) 
S.C.R. 682, 
Budhan Chowdhry and othe1·s _v. The State of Bihar, ( 1955) S.C.R. 
1945 an<l ~edar Nath Baioria '" The State of West Bengal, (1954) 
S.C.R. 30, applied. 
There is no doubt that the case of the appellant · was not 
concluded and 
was pending before the Presidency Magistrate on 
July 28, 1952, the date of the commencement of the 
Act. 
The 
fact that .the Special Judge was not appointed until September 26, 
1952, on which date the arguments for the prosecution and the 
defence were concluded did not affect the position. 
Even if it be 
assumed that the 
Act did not effectively commence until the 
Special Judge was appointed 
by the 
notification of September 26, 
1952, which came into effect immediately after the midnight of 
September 25, 1952, the trial of the appellant could 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.