LexKEDAR NATH BAJORIA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• 1953 K. 0. Gajapati 3o SUPREME COURT REPORTS Agent for the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 71, 72, 73, 75 & 76: M. S. K. Sastri. Narayan Deo Agent for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 74: and Others R. 0. Prasad. v. The State of Orissa. 1953 May 22. Agent for the respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. KEDAR NATH BAJORIA v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL. HARI RAM VAID v. THE STATE OF V\'EST BENGAL. [PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE, GHULAM HASAN and JAGANNADHA DAs JJ.] West Bengal Criminal Law AmendJment (Sp:Cial Cozwts) Act, 1949, s. 4(1)-Constit1'tion of In.dia, 1950, arts. 14, 20-LP.w constitiiting Special Oonrts to try special kinds of offences and empowering execu,tive to direct particular cases to be tried by Special Courts-Validity-Equal protection of law-Tests of validity- Beasonable classification-Imposition of additional fines- Legality. Vlbether n.n en&ctment providing for special procedure for the trial of certain offences is or is not discriminatory and viola· tive of art. 14 of the Constitution must be determined in each case as_ it arises, for no general rule applicable to all cases can safely be laid down. The West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, which was entitled an Act to provide for the more speedy trial and more effective punishment of certain offences, and the preamble of which declared that it was expedient to provide for the more speedy trial and the more effective punishment of certain offences which were set out in the Schedule to the Act, empowered the Provincial Government (by ss. 2 and 3) to consti- tute Special Courts of criminal jurisdiction for specified areas and to appoint Special Judges to preside over such courts. Section 4 '-...,.. ,_ )- ' - _, ., / S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 31 1953 of the Act provided that the Provincial Government may, from to time, allot cases for trial to a Special Judge, that the Special Judge shall have jurisdiction to try the cases for the time being Kedar Nath allotted to him in respect of such of the charges for offences Bajoria specified in the Schedule as may be preferred against the accused. v. The procedure laid down for trial by the Special Judges varied in The State 01 West several particulars from the ordinary trials. It was contended Bengal on behalf of the appellants who were convicted and sentenced by a Special Judge under the Act that s. 4 of the Act was void as it contravened article 14 of the Constitution in that it enabled the Government to single out a particular case for reference to the Special Court for trial by a special procedure which denied to the persons tried under it certain material advantages enjoyed by those tried under the ordinary procedure : Held, per PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MUKHERJEA, GHULAM HASAN and JAGANNADHA DAS JJ, (VIVIAN BOSE J, dissenting): (i) that when a law like the present one is impugned on the ground that it contravenes art. 14 of the Constitution, the real issue to be decided is whether, having regard to the underlying purpose and policy of the Act as disclosed by its title, preamble and provisions, the classification of the offences for thii trial of which the Special Court is set up and a special procedure is laid down can be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary and therefore violative of the equal protection clause; (ii) having regard to the fact that the types of offences specified in the Schedule to the Act wern very common and widely prevalent during the post-war period and had to be checked effectively and speedily tried, the legislation in question must be regarded as having been based on a perfectly intelligent principle of classification, having a clear and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved, and it did not in any way contravene art. 14 of the Constitution; (iii) the impugned section cannot be said to contravene art. 14 merely because the Government was vesteii with a discre- tion to allot any particular case to the Special Judge and is not required to allot all cases of offences set out in the Schedule, to the Special Court, for if the impugned legislation indicates the policy which inspired it and the object which it seeks to attain, the mere fact that the legislation does not itself make a complete and precise classification of the persons or things to which it is to be applied, but leaves the selective application of the law to be made by the ex
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.