LexKANTA PRASHAD versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l!JJ8
Srt11tosli K1tm'lr
v
Bltai .Jlool Singh
Bo~e J.
1''1'.bruury 6.
1218
SUPHE:\IE C'OUHT JUWOH'l'S
[1958]
arbitrarily. or is based on a misunderstanding of the princi-
ples that govern its exercise. then interference is called for
if there has been a resultant failure of justice. As we have
said, the only ground given for concluding that the defence
is not bona fide is that the defendant did not prove his asser-
tions before he was allowed to put in his defence; and there
i' an obvious failure of justice if judgment is entered against
a. man who, if he is allowed to prove his case, cannot but
succeed. Accordingly, interference is called for here.
The appeal is allowed. We set aside the orders of the
High Court and the learned trial Judge
and remand the
case to the first Court for trial of the issues raised by the
defendants. The costs of the appellants in this Court will be
paid by the respondent who has failed here.
Appeal allowed.
KANT A PRASHAD
v.
DELHI ADMINISTRATION
(and connected appeal)
(B. P. SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.)
Criminal Law-Grant of pardon-Power of the District
Magistrate--.Case triable by Court of Special Judge-Cou1't of
Session=-ConcUrrent jurisdiction to tender pardon-Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947), s. 5(2)-Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 1952 (46 of 1952), ss. 8(2)(3), 9-Code of Cm·
minal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898). ss. 337. 338.
The appellants were convicted under s. 120B and s. 224/109
of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Cor-
ruption Act, 1947, by the Court of Special Judge constituted un-
der the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952. It was contended I
for them that lhe conviction was bad on the ground inter alia
that the ·pardon tendered to the approver by the Ditsrict M.agis-
trate under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by virtue
of which he was examined as a witness by the Special Judge,
S.C.R.
SUPRE'.ME countr REPORTS
1219
was without jurisdiction. The contention was that the provisions
Qf s. 337 were not applicable to the case, as the offence under
s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was punish-
able with impl'li!ionment which may ·extend to ten years, while
s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enabled a Distr'ict
Magistrate to tender a pardon "in the case of any offence tria-
ble exclusively by the High Court or a Court of Session or any
offence punishable with imprisonment which may
extend to
ten years ............ ". But under ss. 8(3) and 9 of the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 1952, for the purposes of the Couri of Cri-
minal Procedure, the Court of Special Judge is deemed to be 1.1
Court of Session 1lI'yi,ng cases without jur-·:
Held, that although the offence was triable exclusively by
the Court of Special Judge, the District Magistrate had autho-
mty to tender a pardon under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, as tbe Court of Special Judge was, 1ln law, a Court
of Session.
CRIMIN'AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals
Nos. 202 and 203 of 1957.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order
dated November 16, 1956, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit
Bench) at Delhi in Criminal Appeals Nos. 31-D and 506-C Gf
1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated August 31.
1956, of the Court .of the Special Judge at Delhi, in Corrup-
tion Case No. 8 of 1956.
D. R. Kalia and K. L. Arora, for the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No. 202 of 1957.
D. R. Katia and Raghu Nath; for the appellant in Crimi-
nal Appeal No. 203 of 1957.
H. J. Umrigar and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent in
both the appeals.
1958. February 6. The Judgment of the Court was deli-
vered by
IMAM J.-The appellants, who were police constables at
the time of.the occurrence, were convicted by the Special
Judge of Delhi under s. 1208 and s. 224/ 109 of the Indian
Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
(2 of 1-947). They were sentenced to two years' rigorous im-
prisonment under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947 and to nine months' rigorous imprisonment under each
of the ss. 1208 and 224/ 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
1958
.Kantn Prw~!trul
v.
])d!i;
Ar..lminil!t.raUon
lmam,J.
/!1.iS
A·r1nt11 Pra.~lwd
".
JJdld
Admini~tn1liun
luwm .!,
1220
SUPREME ('Ol'RT UEPOUTS
[1958]
The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run
concurrently. Their appeals to the Punjab High Court were
dismissed and the present appeals are by special leavExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.