K. SATW ANT SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 28-10-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--
' 
• 
r 
-
~· 
S.C.R. 
SUPHEME COURT REPORTS 
89 
suit was well within time. In this view it is not 
necessary to express our opinion on the question 
whether there was a subsequent acknowledgment of 
the appAllant's liability within the meaning of art. 19 
of the Indian Limitation Act. 
In the result, the appeal fails and.is dismissed with 
costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
K. SATW ANT SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
(and connected petition) 
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, 
K. N. W ANCHOO and K. 0. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial-J oinder of charges and persons in a single trial 
-Person charged with three ojf ences of cheating tried jointly with 
abettor-Legality-Place of trial-Sanction to prosecute public 
servant, requirement of-Minimum fine prescribed by s·ubsequent 
Ordinance, if violates constitutional protection-Code of Criminal 
Procedure (Act V of I898), ss. I79. I8o, I97• 234, 239(b)-Indian 
Penal Code (Act X LV of I86o), s. 420-Criminal Law Amendment 
l Ordinance, I943 (XXIX of I94J), as amended by the Criminal Law 
• (I943 Amendment) Amending Ordinance, I9.!J.5 (XII of I945), s. IO 
-Constitution of India, Art. 20(I). 
The appellant, who had been a contractor in Bnrma, in 
response to an advertisement issued in August, 1942, by the 
evacuee Government of Burma, then functioning at Simla, invit-
_ing claims from contractors for works of construction and repairs 
executed by them, submitted claims aggregating to several lacs of 
rupees. The Government of Burma sent these claims. for verifi-
cation to Major Henderson at Jhansi in March and May, 1943· as 
he was the officer who had knowledge of these matters. He 
certified many of these claims to be correct and on his certification 
the Government of Burma sanctioned the claims and directed the 
Controller of Military ciaims at Kolhapur to pay the amounts. 
On the request of the appellant cheques drawn on the Imperial 
Bank of India at Lahore were posted to him from Kolhapur and 
they were encashed at Lahore. The largeness of such claims 
aroused the suspicions of the Government and it was discovered 
that the claims made by the appellant were false. 
He was tried 
in several trials under s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code along with 
Henderson, charged under s. 420/109 of the Code for abetment of 
those offences, before a special Tribunal at Lahore, functioning 
ri 
I959 
Union of India 
v. 
Amar Singh 
Subba Rao]. 
z959 
October 28 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] 
r959 
under Or<linance No. XXIX of 1943, as amended by ordinance 
. 
No. XII of rg45 
After the partition of India, the trials by the 
SatUJant Singh 
Special Tribunal took place at. Simla. The aprellant \vas convic-
v. 
ted at these trials and sentenced to imprisonment ranging fro'rn 
The State of Punjab one year to three years, and payment of fines of variou8 amounts. 
The Tribunal div_ided the fines into 'ordinary' and 'compulsory', 
the lat1er by virtue of s IO of the Ordinance, \Vhich prescribed a 
minimum fine equal to the amount procurecl by the offence. In 
default of payment of the 'ordinary' fines it directed the appel-
lant to undergo further imprisonment for ce·rtain periods, but 
there was no such direction with res1·ect to the 'compulsory' fines. 
The High Court, on appeal, affirme<l the convictions but varied 
the sentences by reducing the term of imprisonment and setting 
aside the 'compulsory' fines. 
The appellant as also the State of 
Punjab appealed to this Court. It was conten<led on behalf of 
the appellant that (r) the offeoces having been committed at 
Kolhapur, then outside British India, the trial at Simla, in the 
absence of any certificate or sanction given under s. i88 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, was illegal; (2) the joint trial of the 
appellant and Henderson at Simla was also illegal: (3) ss. 234(1) 
and 239(b) of the Code could not be combined to try a person 
charged with three offences of cheating with another charged 
with abetment in respect thereof in a single trial and (4) sanction 
under s. 197 of the Code was necessary for the prosecution of 
Henderson and the absence of such sanction vitiated the joint 
trial. The contention of the State in the appeals preferred by it 
was that the imposition of the 'compulsory' fines by the Tribunal 
was perfectly valid in law ancl the High Court was in error in 
setting aside the same. 
Held, that before the provisions of s. 188 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure could apply to a case. it \Vas necessa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.