LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL versus S. K. GHOSH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- ) -_,. • 2 s.c.R. SUPREME OOUR'r REPOR'l's 111 I do not see how these observations help the appel- I9BB lant. They only state the obvious, ne.mely, the.t if Da••,.,, of BAimJi there was a law within the meaning of the amended Goliil article, no question of infringing -the fundamental Joint cM:icontrolu• right would arise. There is no force in this .argu- of Imports 4' Eyor11 ment. This question anyhow does not affect my Subb• Rao J• decision, as I have come to the conclusion that the Press Notes issued by the Government dearly in- fringed the fundamental right of the petitioner. But, in view of the fact that the period for which licence was asked had run out, the applica- tion in respect thereof has become infructuous and, therefore has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but, in the circumstances· of this case, without costs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. S. K. GHOSH (H.P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.,) ' Attached Property, Disp(,sal of-TerminatiOn of Orimi..al Proceeding for scheduled offence-Order of District Judge-- Vali· dity-Forfeiture, if a penalty-Criminal Law Amendm~nt Ordinance; 1944(38 of 1944), ss. 13(3), 12(1)3.-0riminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1943 (29 of 1943), aa amended by Cri- minal Law (11143 Amendment) Amending 0, dinance, 1945( 12 of 1945), s.10---0onstitution of India, Art. 20(1)-lndian Penal Gode, 1860(Act 56 of 1860), sa. 120B, 409, 53. The respondent, who was the Chief Refugee Administrator of Burma Rofugec Orga':'isatfon from November, 1942, to August 25, I 944, was tried under ss. I 20B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code by the Second Special Tribunal, function- ing under the Criminal Law Ordinance No. 29 of 1943 as amr.nded by Criminal Law (1943 Amendment) Amending Ordinance No. I 2 11f I 945. On an application made on 1962 - .4pril 16. 1962 S~ rif U'ut B1ngal •• S.K. i·hosli 112 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1963J behalf of the Provincial Government under s. 3 of the Crimi- nal Law Amendment Ordinance, ]l;o. 38 of 1944, the District Judge atlachcd cettain properties as having been purchased by the respondent with QJ.Oncy procured by the said offence. The Special Tribunal found the respondl:nt guilty and senten- ced him to rigorous itnprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 45 lacs as in its view the money procured by the offences exceeded thiit amount. On appeal by the respondent the High Court affirmed the order of conviction and sentence. "fhcrc was a further appeal to this Court and this Court affirmed the finding of the High Court that at least Rs. 30 lacs must have been misappropriated and refused to interfere. Thereafter the District Judge, on an application made under s. 1 ~ of the l 944 Ordinance passed the order, out of which the present appeal arose, directing that Rs. 30 lacs together with the co<t of attachment should first be forfeited to the Union of India from the attached properties and thereafter the fine of Rs. 45 lacs was to be recovered from the res.idue of the attached properties and directed the receiver to report as to the valuation and the cost of attachment and manage· ment of the attached properties. The respondent appealed to the High Court and the two Judges of the Division Bench hearing the appeal agreed in quashing the order of the District Judge; one of them on the ground that no order having heen obtained under s. 12(1) of that Ordinance, no application lay under s. 13(3) thereof and the other on the ground that since forfeiti.Jre \\'3S not prescrib<:d as punish- ment hc!ore the 1944 Ordinance and that Ordinance came into force after the offence has Ueen committed, any forfeiture ordered under tne Ordinance would contravene Art. 20(1) of the Constitution. The State of West Bengal appealed. Held, that the order of the High Court must be set aside and that of the District Judge resorted. Section 12( 1) of the 1944 Ordinance only required that at the request of the prosecution the court shoUld give a finding as to the amount of money or the value of the Pi:<>- pcrty that had been procured by the accused by the com~IS sion of the offence, no matter whether such representation was by application or oral, and if the court gave the finding that would be sufficient compliance with the section. Where such a finding was given under .•· ~ 0 of the 1943 Or~inance as amended in 1945, that fi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.