LexDIN DAYAL SHARMA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I959 The T'atna Electric Supfly Co., Ltd., Patna v. The Patna 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959) Supp. national economy. In fairness to the Tribunals we ought to add that if the tribunals had not taken an erroneous view about the effect of the scheme sanc- tioned by the Bihar Government they would not have granted the demand made by the respondent for housing accommodation. Since we hold that on the Elecfric supply merits the award cannot be sustained we do not think Workers' Union it is necessary to consider whether the expenditure Gajcndragadkar J. involved in the construction of quarters would be admissible under the relevant provisions of the Elec- tricity Act. 1959 April 23. The result is the appeal succeeds and the award under appeal is set aside. , In the circumstances of this case we think it would be fair that the parties should bear their own costs. Appeal allowed. DIN DAYAL SHARMA v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (JAFER !MAM and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) Criminal Trial-Bribery and criminal miscond14ct-Accused committed to Court of Session-Law amended making such cases triable by Special Judge-Sessions Judge, if has jurisdiction to con- tinue trial·-Investigation by officer below Deputy Superintendent of Police-Whether trial vi(iated-Prevention of Corruption Act, I947 (II of Ig47), s. 5-A-Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, I952 (46 of I952), S. IO. . The appellant was committed to the Court of Session for trial of offences under s. 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and s. r6r Indian Penal Code. Shortly thereafter, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 came into force. An Assistant Sessions Judge tried the appellant aud convicted him of the offences charged. The appellant contended that the trial was vitiated as the investigation had been mad~ by a police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and that the Assistant Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case as it was tri- able by a Special Judge. "f< Held that, the Assistant Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to (2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 777 try the case. Section IO of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, r959 1952 transferred only cases pending before Magistrates to Special Judges but did not transfer cases which had been committed to Din Dayal Sha.ma Court of Session before the Act came into force. v. Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla v. The State, [1957] S.C.R. The State of 678, relied on. Uttar Pradesh Held further that, the conviction was not vitiated by the investigation having been made by an officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. If the matter had been urged before the Courts at an early stage it would have had to take steps to get the illegality cured by ordering fresh investigations. But the appellant could not be permitted to raise the questions whether the objection regarding investigation had been taken at the earliest stage as the question had not been raised in the Courts below. H. N. Rishbud v. The State of Delhi, [1955] r S.C.R. n50, relied on. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 16, 1955, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1403 of 1953, arising out of the Judgment and order dated August 6, 1953, of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 1953. H.J. Umrigar and K. L. Mehta, for the appellant. G. 0. Mathur, 0. P. Lal and G. N. Dikshit, for the respondent. 1959. April 23. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM, J.-The appellant was convicted under s. 5(2) Imam J. of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count. The sentences were made to run concurrently. On the facts found by the courts below the appel- lant accepted Rs. 20/- as illegal gratification from one Malekchand who had applied for allotment of a house. The appellant was employed at that time as a clerk in the office of the District Relief and Rehabilitation Office, Meerut. The aforesaid sum of money was accepted by the appellant as bribe with a view to get- ting a house allotted to Malekchand. There can be 98 . ' 778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. '959 no question that., on the facts found, the appellant Din Dayal Sharma was guilty both uuder s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Cor- . v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.