M. K. GOPALAN AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 168 · Decided: 05-04-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
T olaram Relumal 
and Another 
v. 
The State of 
Bombay. 
Mehr Chand 
/vfaha}an C. J. 
1954 
April 5. 
168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
sub-section Vl'ere 
In our opinion, 
much assistance 
section 18(1). 
never intended to be included therein. 
the language of that section is not of 
in construing the main provisions of 
The result therefore is that in our view the receipt 
of money by the appellants from the complainant at 
the time of the oral executory 
agreement of lease was 
not made punishable under section 18(1) of the Act and 
is outside its mischief, and the Presidency Magistrate 
was in error in convicting the appellants and the High 
Court was al>o in error in upholding their conviction. 
We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the convic-
tion of the appellants and order that they be acquitted. 
Appeals allowed. 
M. K. GOPALAN AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. 
[MuKHERJEA, 
SuDHI 
RANJAN 
DAs, BHAGWATI, 
JAGANNADHADAS and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.J 
Constitutt°on of 
India-Article 
14-Criminal Procedure Code 
(Act V of 1898), Section 14 and 197(1) and (2)-Section 14 whether 
ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution-Scope of power under sec~ 
tion 197(2) and section 14-Whether the word "Court" in section 197 
(2) means the same thing as ward "person" in section 14. 
The petitioner, 
an 
officer 
of 
the 
Madras Government, was 
employed in Central Provinces and Berar for the purchase of grains 
on behalf of the Madras Government. He along with many others, 
was under prosecution before a Special Magistrate, Nagpur (Madhya 
Pradesh), on charges for offences under section 420 of the Indian 
Penal Code etc. for causing loss to the Madras Government. 
The 
Special Magistrate trying the case 
was appointed by the Madhya 
Pradesh 
Government 
under 
section 14 
of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure 
and as the petitioner was a servant of the 
Government 
of Madras, 
the 
prosecution against him was 
initiated with the 
sanction given by 
the Government of Madras under section 197(1) 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
Held, (i) that section 14 of the Criminal J>rocedure 
Code in so 
far as it authorises the Provincial Government to confer upo'n any 
person all 
or 
any of 
the 
powers conferred or conferrable by or 
under the Code on Magistrates of the first, second or third class in 
" 
l
..... 
) 
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
169 
respect of particular cases 
and 
thereby to 
constitute 
a Special 
Magistrate for the 
trial of an individual case, does not violate the 
guarantee 
under 
article 
14 
of the Constitution as 
the Special 
Magistrate in the present case had 
to 
try the case entirely under 
the normal procedure and no discrimination of the kind contem-
plated by the decision in Anwar Ali Sarkar's Case ([1952] S.C.R. 284) 
.arose in the present case. 
A law vesting discretion in an authority 
under such circumstances cannot be discriminatory and is, therefore, 
not hit by article 14 of the Constitution. 
(ii) It is not for the very Government which accords sanction 
under section 197 ( 1) to specify also the Court before which the trial 
is to be held under section 197(2) and therefore in a case to which 
,section 197(1) applies, the exercise of any power under section 14 is 
.not excluded. The word "Court" in sub-section (2) of section 197 is 
:not the same thing as a "person" in sub-section ( 1) of section 14. 
The practice of direct approach to 
the Supreme Court under 
.article 32 (except for good reasons) 
in matters which have been 
taken to the High Court and found against, without obtaining leave 
to appeal therefrom, is not be encouraged. 
Gokulchand 
Dwarkadas 
Morarka v. The King 
(A.LR. 1948 
P. C. 82) referred to; and Anwar Ali Sarkar's case ([1952] S.C.R. 
184) distinguished. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 55 of 1954. 
Under article 32 of the Constitution for the enforce-
ment of fundamental rights. 
.., 
N. C. Chatterjee, (!. B. Dadachanji and 
Rajinder 
Narain, with him) for the petitioners. 
K. V. Tambe and I. N. Shroff for the respondent. 
1954. 
April 5. The 
Judgment of the 
Court was 
·delivered by 
JAGANNADHADAS J.-This is a petition under arti-
cle 32 of the Constitution and is presented to this Court 
under 
the 
following 
circumstances. 
Petitioner No. 1 
• 
before us was an Agricultural Demonstrator of the 
Government of Madras and was employed as an Assist-
ant Marketing Officer in Central Provinces and Berar 
for the purchase and movement

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.