RAO SHIV BAHADUR SINGH AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 1188 · Decided: 22-05-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
1953 
1188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1953] 
that basis against respondent 3 who is pnly a nominat· 
ed member. 
N ain Sukh Da/J 
and Another 
The petitioners appear to have misconceived their 
v. 
The State of 
U ttar Pradesh 
and Others. 
Patanjali Sastri 
0.J. 
1953 
.ilfay 22 
remedy and their application under article 32 must 
fail. 
The petition is dismissed with costs, one set. 
Petition dismissed. 
Agent for the petitioners: K. L. 11fehta. 
Agent for respondent No. 1 : 0. P. Lal. 
Agent for respondent No. 4: S. P. Varma. 
RAO SHIV BAHADUR SINGH AND ANOTHER 
v . 
THE STATE OF VINDHYAPRADESH. 
PATANJALI SASTm C. J., Mt:KHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE, 
GHULAM HASAN and JAGANNADHA DAS JJ. 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art.1. 14, 20-Acts committed in 
Rewa State in 1949 before Vindhya. Pradesh Ordinance No. XL VIII 
of 1949-Charge mider said Ordinance and tr-ial under Vindh:yr> 
Pradesh Criininr<l Law Amendme1't (Special Courts) Ordinance (V 
of 1949) -Validity of trial and conviction-F\tncla.>nental rights to 
equality of laws and against conviction nnrler ex post facto law-
Scope of Arts.14 and 20-Integration of States and Vi·ndhwi Pra-
desh Ordinances, effect of. 
The appellants, who were during the relevant period, the 
~Iiuister for Industries and Secretary to the Government respect-
ively of the State of Vindbya Pradesh, were tried by a Special 
Judge under the Vindhya Pradesh Criminal Law Amendment 
(Special Courts) Ordinance (No. V of 1949) for charges under 
ss. 120-B, 16l, 465 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code as adapted 
by the Vindhya Pradesh Ordinance No. XLV III of 1949, the facts 
alleged against them being that they entered into a conspiracy in 
February, 1949, at Rewa to obtain illegal gratification for revoking 
a previous Government Order and in pursuance of that conspiracy 
the second appellant domanded such gratification on 8th March, 
1949, at Rewa and the first appellant received Rs. 25,000 towards 
it on the 11th April, 1949, at New Delhi and forged certain docu-
ments purporting to be official orders. 
They were acquitted by 
the Special Judge but on appeal the first appellant was convicted 
by the Judicial Commissioner 011 all t.he charges and the second 
•ppellanl; on the clrnrges under ss. 120-13 and 161 of the Indian 
• 
• • 
8.C.R. 
SUPREiVIE COURT REPOHTS 
1189 
Penal Code. 
Tqe validity of the trial and convictions was cha!-
1963 
longed on appeal to the Supreme Court inter alia on the ground 
that they contrnvenecl arts. 14 and 20 of the Constitution and on 
Rao Shiv 
the ground that no appeal lay to the Judicial Commissioner from Bahadur Singh 
the order of the Special Judge. 
and Another 
Held (i) that, as s. 5 (2) of the Vindbya Pradesh Ordinance, 
Th ;; t if 
1949. provided that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code v· d~ ~·~ h 
shall apply to the proceedings of a Special Court and that the '" ya ra 
8 
Special Judge shall be deemed to be a court of session, the normal 
right of appeal provided by s. 410 ors. 417, as the case may be, of 
the Criminal Procedure Code must be taken to have been expressly 
provided by reference, and the order of the Special Judge was 
appealable to the Judicial Commissioner. 
Attorney-General v. Herman James Sillem (11 H. L. C. 704) 
distinguished. 
(ii) That the trial of the appellants did not contravene art.14 
of the Constitution inasmuch as in the Vindbya Pradesh Criminal 
Procedure Code las amended) which was in force at the commence-
ment of the trial (namely 2nd December, 1949) there was no 
provision requiring all trials before Courts of Sessions to be either 
by jury or with the aid of assessors, and the fact that the entire 
Criminal Procedure Code including s. 268 thereof was extended to 
Vindbya Pradesh on the 16th April, 1950. by the Part C States 
(Laws) Act, 1950, could not affect the validity of the trial after 
that date as s. 4 of the said Act provides that the repeal of the 
earlier law by that Act shall not affect pending proceedings, and 
pending proceedings being a class in themselves, a provision saving 
such proceedings could not contravene art. 14. 
Syed Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad ([1952] S.C.R. 710) 
referred to. 
(iii) The prohibition contained in art. 20 of the Constitution 
against convictions and subjections to penalty under ex post facto 
laws is not confined in its operation to post-Constitution laws but 
applies also to ex post facto laws passed before the Constitution 
in their application to pending procee

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