LexRAM CHANDRA PRASAD versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A i'iril IR. 50 1'UPRJ£ME COURT REPOR'l'S [1962] RAM CHANDRA PBASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR (K. 8UBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAJ,, JJ.) ~ Criminal Trial-Corruption -Special Judge-Territorial juris- 11 diction-Defect of, if curable-Presumption as to guilt-Whether , procedure established by law-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947), ss. 4 and 5(2)--Criniinal Law Amendmeiit Act, 1952 (XLV I of 1952), ss. 7, 8 and IO-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), ss. 526 and 5]1-Constitution of lndia, Arts. 216 and 145(3). The appellant accepted a sum of Rs. 10,000 from a con- tractor. He was chalanned before a Magistrate at Dhanbad; but on an application by the appellant the High Court trans- ferred the case to the Munsif-Magistrate, Patna. Subsequently, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, came into force which made every offence under s. r6r Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) Prevention. of Corruption Act triable only by a Special Judge for the area within which it was committed. The case of the appellant was forwarded to the Special Judge at Patna who convicted him both under s. r6r and s. 5(2). The appel- lant contended: (1) that the Special Judge at Patna had no jurisdiction to try the appellant as the offence was committed within the area of the Special Judge at Dhanbad and (2) that the provisions regarding the presumption contained in s. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, offended Art. 21 of the Constitution. Held, that the order of conviction could not be quashed on the ground that the Special Judge at Patna had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case as no failure of justice had been occasioned. Section 531 Code of Crimin.al Procedure was appli- ;;able to trials by Special Judges. The High Court had also the power under s. 526 of the Code to transfer a case from one Special Judge to another, and the omission of a formal order transferring the case to the Special Judge at Patna had i.~ot pre- judiced the appellant. Held, further that the procedure laid down bys. 4 of the J?revention of Corruption Act, which was enacted by Parlia- ment, laid down a procedure established by law. The question that s. 4 offended Art. 21 of the Constitution was not a substan- tial question as to the interpretation of the Constitution within the meaning of Art. 145(3) and it was not necessary to refer it to a Bench of five Judges. ... A. K. Gopala11 v. The State of Madras, [r950] S.C.R. 88, 111111 followed. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 51 CRIMINAL APPELLATE Appeal No. 168 of 1959. J URISDWTION: Criminal I96I Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 10, 1958, of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 1953. B. B. Tawakley and R. C. Pra8ad, for the appellant. A. K. Dutt and S. P. Varma, for the respondent. 1961. April 18. The Judgment of tbn Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the Patna High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal against his convic- tion for offences under s. 161, Indian Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7 (Act II of 1947), hereinafter called the Act. The appellant was the Construction Engineer at Sindhri. R. B. Basu was a contractor living in Cal- cutta and carrying on the business of the company named and styled the Hindustan Engineering and Construction Company. The prosecution alleged, and the Courts below have found, that the appellant accept- ed the sum of Rs. 10,000 as illegal gratification from Basu at the Kelner's Restaurant at Dhanbad Railway Station on July 18, 1951. The Courts disbelieved the appellant's defenoe that he had taken the envelop0 containing this amount not knowing that it contained this amount, but knowing that it contained papers relating to Basu's con- tracts. The contentions raised on behalf of the. appellant are: (i) that the provisions regarding the presumption contained in s. 4 of the Act are unconstitutional; (ii) that the case was tried by the Special Judge who had no jurisdiction to try it; (iii) that there had been no proper corroboration of the statement of Basu about the accused demanding the bribe and accepting the amount as illegal gratification. The Constitutionality of s. 4 of the Act was sought to be questioned on the ground that it went against Ram Chandra Prasad v. St11te of Bihar Raghubar Dayal J Ram Chandra Prasad v. Slate of Bihar Rag
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.