LexKRISHAN LAL DHAWAN AND ·ANOTHER versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
209
be
precluded from
making
the present appli-
cation
on the ground of res judicata. At the
highest, a plea ofres judicata may perhaps be raised
against the third respondent but that would not
be effective in view of the fact that in the present
case, an application
has been made by the
fourth respondent as well.
That is why Mr.
Mehta did not seriously press the point of res
judicata before us.
In the result, fails the appeal and is dismissed
with costs.
Appeal dismissw.
KRISHAN LAL DHAWAN AND ·ANOTHER
v.
DELHI ADMINISTRATION
(J. L. KAPUR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and RAGHUBAR
DAYAL, JJ.)
Criminal Trial-Trial by Special Judge-Another •pecial
Judge
conducts further proceedings-Conviction-Valid-ity-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 18.98), s. 350-
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952). s. 8,
sub's. 3.
The appellants were charged under ss. 120B and 420
Indian Penal Code ands. 5 (I) (d) read withs. 5 (2) of the
prevention of Corruption Act. The trial of the appellants was
commenced before a 15pecial Judge who heard the prosecution
evidence. 'fhereafter the trial was taken up by another special
Judge who examined the defence witnesses. and
finally
convicted
the appellants. The appellants appealed to the
High Court and the High Court upheld the conviction and
sentence. The appellants thereupon appealed to the Supreme
Court by special leave.
The sole question which was raised by the appellants
was that in view of the fact the trial commenced before
one Special Judge and another Special Judge took up the
proceedings
are
incompetent. . . The
respondent ·
relying on s. 8, sub-s. (3), of the Cnmmal Law Amendment
The Fine IL nit tint
Co., Ltd.
v.
The fndustrial Court,
Bombay
Gojentlr•zadk•r J.
196S
1962
Kris/um Lal Dhawan
v.
D1lhi AdminiJtration
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
Act, 1952,
contcncltcl
that
trial
\Vas competent and thr
conviction and sentence \\'<·re V<did in lav.•.
Held, that s. 350 of the Co:le of Criminal Procerlure
is not applicable \\·hen one spcr.ial Judge is succeeded hy
another. Neither dor~
.<;,
3 (a)
of 1he
Criminal
Law
Amendment Act, 1956, make the applicability of s. 350 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to a trial by a special Judge
retrospective.
Pai1are T.al "· Sl'lle of Punjab, ( 1962; 3 S. C.R. 328,
followed.
CnnrCTAT. APPELLATE ,Jumsmcnox: Criminal
Appeal !'\os. l!l6 and l!l7 of 60.
Appeal by snecial leave from thll ju<l!!ment
and orrlor date<l l\Iwv 12, l!lii8, of the Punjab Higoh
Court (Circuit B~nch) at Delhi in Criminal Appeals
Nos. 3-D and 1-D of 1958.
·
A.S.R. Chari, :lf. K. Rarnamurthi, R. K. 011rq,
n. P. Shl{]h and 8. C. Aqnrwal, for the appellant
(in Cr. A. No. 1 !!6/60).
N. S. Uindra, I. M. Lal and A.G. Ratna.pml.·hi
for the aprwllant (in Cr. A. Ko. I!l7 /fl0).
If. R. Khanna., R. Ji. Dhebar and P. D. Menon,
for the respoude11ts.
1962. February 15.
The Judgment of the
Court was dcliverPd
0
by
KAPl"H, J.-Thrse two appeals are directed
agoainst the judgm<'nt and ordn 1Jf the Punjab
High Court confirmin~ the con~ietion of the appel-
lants under sH.120 B ancl 421l; Indian Penal Cod<>,
and s.5(1 )(cl) rPad with s. 5(:2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 194-7; and sentmwing each of them
to an aggregate Henknce of six mrmth8' rigorous
i m prisonmrn t.
It is unnecessarv to set. out the fac:ts in cle-
tnil but to put them briefly.
'J he app"1lant;
Albert llfosscs was the
Princ:ipal incharge of the
Rehabilitation Cc>ntrc, i\falviya Nagar and Kalkaji
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
211
under the Ministry of Rehabilitation. The appel·
!ant, K. L. Dhawan, was a partner in the firm
named M/s. Dhawan & Co. apd they supplied a
surface plate for a sum of Rs. 1,950/- to the Works
Centre of which the a,ppellant Albert Moses was
the Principal.
The trial of the appellants and R. P. Dhawan,
who has been acquitted, commenced in the Court of
Mr.
Jawala Das, Special Judge, Delhi, and he
heard the case from the date of the institution
of the proceedings on May 21, 1956 to October
26,
1956. He heard the prosecution evidence
which was closed on October 2n, 1956. The case
was then ta.ken up by Mr. P. D. Sharma, Special
Judge, Delhi, from
December 20,
1956. He
cx:amined defence witnesses and finally convicted
the appellants of the offences already mentioned
and acquitted R. P. Dhawan.
Against the conviction and sentence .an appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.