LexDHIRENDRA KUMAR MANDAL versus THE SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r95"4
Rohald.. WO;d
M'atnams
v.
State Of Wtst'
Bing al:
Y tnkatarama
l!yyitr Jc
1954
April 20.
"
"
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[!955~
o~der dated 5tli August,
1948,
the "Privy
council
enlarged the scope of the appeal by permitting the
appellant to raise the contention that there had been
a contravention of section 257 of the Criminal Pro-
cedure Code;
These are the two points that arise for
determination in his appeal. The question whetller
sanction under sei;tion 197 wa:s necessary for instituting
proceedings against the appellant on charges of conspi-
racy and of bribery; is now concluded by the decisions
of the Judicial Committee in H. H. B. Gill v. The
King(') and Phanindra Chandra Neogy v. The King( 2 )'.
and" must be answered in the negative. The question
whether there was contravention of section 257 of the
Criminal Procedure Code
and a denial or fair trial
must, for the reasons" already given, be answered in
the affirmative, and the convictionc of the appellant
set aside on that ground. His appeal will also be
allowed, and there will be an order of acquittal in his
favour~
Appeal allowed.
DHIRENDRA KUMAR MANDAL
v;
THE SUPERINTENDENT AND
REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL,
AND ANOTHER.
" ~MEHR CHAND
MAHAJAN C.J.,
MuKHERJEA, VMAN
BosE BHAGWATI and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.1
Constitution of
India,
Art. 14--Scope
and construction of-
Meanin'g. of reasonable classification-C'rimina/" Procedure Code (A'ct
V of 1898), ss. 269(1), 536-Notification under s. 269(1)-Validity
of-Denial of the right to' be' tried by jury lo certai'n individuals-
Right retained· in t.he case of other indivi.duals committing the same
or .. si'-rJ:iL:zr offetJces-D~fect i'n tri'al-Wheth-er .cured· bys .. 536.
·Trial by j"Nry
is
undoubtedly one of the most vafuable rig)its
wB.i.Ch an accused· can helve Out it -has .not been; guaranfeed Oy the
ConStii:ufIC!n-.
Sect~on· 269( 1) of the CodC· ·o( Criminal' Procedure· is ..___ )_
an: 'enabling· section and ernp0-Wers, the Stare Government- to. direct
-
"M~IA~
..
00%~~
--
'I
-
•
r '
,>-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
225
that the trial of all' offences or of any particular class of offences
before any Court of Session shall be by jury. It has the further
power to revoke or alter such an order. There is nothing wrong if
the State discontinues trial by jury in any district with regard to
all or any particular class of offences. The section does not em-
power the State Government to direct that the trial of a particular
case or of a particular accused person shall be by jury while the
trial of other persons accused of the same· offence shall not be by
jmy. The section does not envisage that persons
accused of the
same offence but involved in different cases can
be
tried
by the
Court of session by a different procedure namely some of them by
jury and some of them with the help of assessors.
The ambit of
the power of revocation
or
alteration
is co-extensive with the
power conferred by the opening words of the section and cannot go
beyond those words.
The impugned notification of the year 1947 revoking the pre-
vious two notifications had denied to certain individuals the right
to be tried by jury while retaining that right in the case
of other
individuals who had committed the same or similar
offences and
thus it had travelled beyond the powers conferred
on the
State
Government by section 269( I) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and was thus void and inoperative.
The impugned notification also contravened the provisions
of
articie 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as
the classification was
not based on some real and substantial distinction
bearing a just
and reasonable relation to the objects sought to be attained but
was made arbitrary and without any substantial basis.
The impugned notification did not in express terms indicate
the grounds on which this set of cases had been segregated from
other sets of cases falling under the same sections of the Indian
Penal Code.
The classification as formulated by the High Court had no re-
lation to the object in view, that is, the withdrawal of jury trial
in these cases.
·
The contention that the defect in the trial, if any, was cured
by section 536 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as this objection
was not taken in the trial Court, was without force as section 536
postulates irregularities at the trial after the commencemeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.