IQBAL SINGH versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) & ORS.

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 174 · Decided: 09-11-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
174 
IQBAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE (DJ;\Llli ADMINISTRATION) & ORS. 
November 9, 1977 
[A. C. GUPTA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Cri!nina.l Law A1nendment Act, 1952, s. S(l)-Jurisdiction of Special Judge~ 
whether limited by a grant of pardon by Magistrate u/s. 337(1), Cr.P.C., 1898-
Post-pardon application of s. 8(1), whether violatire of .4r!icle 14, Constitu-
tion of India. 
A charge-sheet agamst the appellant and two others, \Vas filed before 
the 
Special Judge, Delhi u/s. 120-B I.P.C. read with ss. 161 and 165-A, 1.P.C. 
and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Conuption Act, 
1947. Earlier, 
at the 
investigation stage, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Delhi, bad granted pardon to 
an approver u/s. 337(1) Cr. P.C., 1898. The appellant applied for 
getting 
the proceeding quashed, but his application was dismissed, first by the Special 
Judge, ·and thereafter by the High Court u/ Art. 227 of the Constitution anct 
'· 482. Cr.P.C .. 1898. 
The appellant contended before this Court, 
that, on the 
grant of such a-
pardon, the application of s. 8(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 
ceases for the reason that on the chargesheet being filed before a Magistrate, 
the accused can have the approver's evidence at the trial tested 
against his 
statement before the Magistrate, while he is denied this opportunity where the-
chargesheet is filed before the 
Special Judge, thus rendering s. 8(1) of ithe 
Criminal Law Amendment Act if applied to such a case discriminatory, and 
violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
Dismissing the appeal the Court, 
HELD: (! J Section 337 (2-B), under which the Magislrnte is required to 
send the case for trial to the Special Judge, after examining the approver, 
does not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the Special Judge. 
BY _enacting 
sub-section (2B) in 1955, if the legislature sought to curb the power given to 
the Special Judge by s. 8(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1952. it 
\vould have expressed its intention clearly. [177 B·C] 
(2): The fact that the approver's evidence cannot be tested agairut any 
previous statement does not make any material difference to the detriment of 
the accused, transgressing Article 14 of the Constitution. The Special Judge. 
in any case., v,;11 have to apply the well established tests for the appreciation 
of the acco.mplice's evidence. The mere availability of two procedures woUld 
not justify the quashing of a provision as being violative of 
~.\rt. 14, unles:'j 
there is substantial and qualitative difference between the two procedures 
!!O 
that one is really and substantially more drastic and 
prejudicial 
than the 
other. [177 D-F] 
G 
Maganlar Chag[!anlal (P) Ltd. v. Mt1nicipal Corporatiqn of Greater Botnf')(IJ 
and Ors. [1975] 1 SCR l, applied. 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICATION : Criminal Appeal No. 60 di. 
1977. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.76 
of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Mis. (Main) N(). 84 of 1976. 
A. K. Sen, Bishamberlal and B. B. Lal for the Appella11t. 
P. N. Lekhi and R. N. Sachthey for Respondent No. 1. 
' . 
IQBAL SINGH v. STATE (Gupta, J.) 
175 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GUPTA J., 
This appeal by special leave is directed against an 
-0rder of the Delhi High Court refusing to quash a proceeding pending 
.against the appellant in the Court of the Special Judge, Delhi. 
On or about November 28, 1973 a chargesheet against the appellant 
and two others was filed before the Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, 
1lllegiii1g facts constituting offences pumshable under section 120-BI 
Indian 
Penal 
Code 
read 
with 
sections 
161 
and 
165A of 
the 
Indian Penal Code and 
section 
5 (2) 
of the Preven-
tion 
of 
Corruption 
Act, 
1947. 
One Martin 
Joseph 
Fernandez had been arrested in com)ection with the case when it was 
.at the stage of investigation. 
He was produced before the Chief Judi-
cial Magistrate, Delhi, who tendered a pardon to him under section 
337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred 
to as the Code). 
On December 12, 1975 the appellant applied to 
the Special Judge for quashing the proceeding for want of sanction 
under section l 97 of the Code and also on the ground of failure to 
examine the said Martin Joseph Fernandez as a witness as required by 
~uh-sections (2) and (2B) of section 337 of the Code. 
The Special 
Judge having dismissed the application, the appellant moved the Delhi 
High Court under Art. 227 of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.