MACHERLA HANUMANTHA RAO AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 17-09-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958) 
1957 
his appointement under a Committee which is a 
Maulana Abdul statutory body and such appointment cannot be called 
Shakur 
an appointment by or under the control of the Govern-
Rikhahc1and and ment of India nor is hi~ salary paid out of the revenues 
Another 
of the Government but out of the funds of Durgah 
Kapur 1. 
Endowment. In the. circumstances the majority of 
the Tribunal has erred in holding that the appellant 
held an office of profit under the Government and the 
opinion of the Chairman to the contrary lays down the 
correct position. 
1957 
')eptember 17. 
In view of this finding in regard to the office of 
profit under the Government, it is not necessary to go 
into the question whether there were 
any "thrown 
away" votes or whether the respondent has been 
rightly declared to have been elected. 
We are of the opinion that the election of the 
appellant has been wrongly set aside and we would 
allow the appeal and set aside the order of the majority 
of the Tribunal. The appellant will have his costs 
in this court as also before the Tribunal. 
Appeal al/01red. 
MACHERLA HANUMANTHA RAO 
AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
(with connected petition) 
(S.R. DAS C.J., VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B.P. SINHA, 
J.L. KAPUR and A. SARKAR JJ.) 
Sessions Tria/-Co1111nitment proceeding instituted 011 Police 
report-Proeedure. if makes for inequality before law-Code of 
Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) as amended by tire Code of 
Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1955 (26 of 1955), ss., 207, 
207A-Constitutin of India, Art. 14. 
The point in controversy in this appeal was whether ss. 207 
and 207 A inserted into the Code of Crimninal Procedure by the 
amending Act 26 of 1955, violated the provision of Art. 14 of the 
Constitution and were, therefore, invalid in law. 
The appellants 
were committed for trial to the Court of Session by the inquiring 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
397 
Magistrate in a proceeding instituted against them on a Police 
1957 
report and he. followed the procedure laid down in s, 207 A of the 
Macher/a 
Code as reqmred by s. 207 of the Code. The appellants moved Ha11umantlia Rm·· 
the High Court for quashing the · order of commitment on the 
and others 
ground that the provisions of s. 207A introduced discrimination 
v. 
as against accused persons again&t whom proceedings were Arn;,, si;te ;11 
instituted on Police report and were unconstitutional in character. 
/1 
ra ra es 
The High Court held against them. The contention was reiterated 
in this Court and it was sought to be made out that the provisions 
of s. 207 A of the Code in comparison and contrast to other 
provisions of Ch. XVlil of the Code, prescribed a less advantageous 
procedure for the accused persons in a proceeding started on 
Police report than the procedure prescribed for other cases in the 
suocceding sections of the chapter. 
lle/d, that ss. 207 and 207 A 
of the Code were not 
discriminatory and did not contravene Art. 14 of the Constitution 
and their constitutional validity was beyond question. 
Although there can be no doubt that the impugned sections 
introduced substantial difference in the procedure relating to 
commitment proceedings applicable .to the two classes of cases, they 
did not in any way affect the procedure at the· trial, and the true 
test of the constitutional validity of the classification they made, 
wa' whether it was reasonable and pertinent to the object the 
Legislature had in view, namely, a speedy trial of offences with 
the least possible delay. 
So .iudged there could be no doubt that the Legislature in 
prescribing the two different procedures at th<l commitment stage, 
one for proceedings instituted on Police report and the other for 
those that were not, had acted on a consideration that was 
reasonable and connected with the object it had in view. 
Budhan Choudhry v. The State of Bihar, (1955) S.C.R. 1045, 
applied. 
Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari, (1955) 2 S.C.R. 925, Chiranjit 
Lal Chmrdhuri v. The Union ~f India, (1950) S.C.R. 869, The State 
of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara, (1951) S.C.R. 682, The State of West 
Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) S.C.R. 284, Kathi Raning-
Rawat v: The State of Saurashtra, (1952) S.C.R. 435, Lachmandas 
Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay, (1952, S.C.R. 710, Qasim 
Razvi v. 
The State of Hyderabad, (1953) S.C.R. 581, Habeeb 
Mohamad v. The State of Hyderabad, (1953) S.C.R. 661 and The 
State of Punjab v. Aja
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.