TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A.P. versus CH. PRABHAKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 759 · Decided: 26-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A.P. 
A 
v. 
CH. PRABHAKAR AND ORS. 
MAY 26, 2004 
(S. RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR, J.] 
B 
Indian Electricity Act, 1910 : 
Ss. 39, 49-C, 49cD and 49 as amended by Indian Electricity (Andhra C 
Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2000-Amendment Act, inter alia, providing for 
more severe punishment, trial of offences by Special Tribunal/Special 
Court and transfer of pending cases to Special Tribunal/Special Court-
Constitutional validity of-High Court opined that though in view of 
language used in sub-section (5) of s.49-C all pending cases may be 
transferred, but no right of appeal or revision can be taken away, nor an D 
accused can be deprived of a better procedure in view of the provisions 
of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution, and held that sub-s, (5) of s.49-
C should be read down whereunder pending cases of the nature before the 
Metropolitan Court cannot be transferred to Special Tribunal and writ 
petitioner should be tried in regular criminal court in terms of provisions E 
of Code of Criminal Procedure-Held, since interpretation of Article 20 
as to its scope and ambit is involved in these proceedings, matter is referred 
to larger Bench-Constitution of India Article 20. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
F 
Article 20-1ndian Electricity Act, 1910 as amended by Indian 
Electricity (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2000-Ss. 39, 49-C, 49-D 
and 49-E-Constitutional validity of-Question : Whether constitutional 
guarantee enshrined in clause (1) of Article 20 is confined only to 
prohibition against conviction for any offence except for violation of law G 
in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence and 
subjection to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted 
under the law in force at the time of commission of offence or it also 
prohibits legislation which aggravates the degree of crime-or makes it 
ppssible for the accused to receive greater punishment even though it is H 
759 
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A also possible for him to receive the same punishment under the new law 
as could have been imposed under the prior law or deprives the accused 
of any substantial right or immunity possessed at the time of the commission 
of the offence charged-Referred to larger Bench. 
B 
Article 254(2), Seventh Schedule-List III-Entry 38-Indian 
Electricity (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2000 amending Indian 
Electricity Act, 1910-Legislative competence of State Legislature-Held, 
Entry 38 in the concurrent List of Seventh Schedule is 'Electricity'-
Andhra Pradesh Legislature had the legislative competence to make law 
on the subject of electricity and to make amendments to Indian Electricity 
C Act, 1910-Amending Act has also received the assent of the President of 
India and therefore in view of Article 254(2), it shall prevail. 
Peoples Union for Civil Libertyv. Union of India, 1199711SCC301; 
His Holiness Keshuva Nanda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kera/a 
D and Anr., 11973) 4 sec 225; A.D.M Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, [19761 
2 SCC 521; Mis. Good Year India Ltd. v. State of Haryana, AIR (1990) 
SC 781; Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of UP., AIR (1990) SC 
1927; State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR (1952) SC 75, 
referred to. 
E 
Calder v. Bull, 1 L.Ed. 648; Fletcher v. Peck, 3 L.Ed. 162; Beazell 
v. Ohio, 269 US 167, 70 L.Ed. 216; Bone v. Columbia, (1964) 378 US 
347, 12 L.Ed, 2d. 894; Cummings v. Missouri, 71 US 277, 18 L.Ed. 356; 
Lindsay v. Washington, (1937) 301 US 397, 81 L.Ed. 1182; Kring v. 
F Missouri, 107 US 221, 271, Ed. 506; Hept v. People of Utah, 110 US 574, 
28 L.Ed. 262; Mallet v. North Carolina, 181 US 589, 45 L.Ed. 1015; 
Winston v. State, 118 A.L.R. 719; Miller v. Florida, (1987) 482 US 423, 
96 L.Ed. 2d. 351; Waddington v. Miah, (1974) 2 All E.R. 377; R v. Kirk, 
(1985) 1 All E.R. 453, referred to. 
G 
The Framing of Indian's Constitution "A Study" by B. Shiva Rao, 
Chapter 7, referred to. 
U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Human Rights of the United 
Nations; Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
H Feedoms; Edger Bodenheimer "The Philosophy and Method of the Law"· 
TRANSMISSION CORPN. v. PRABHAKAR [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 761 
(First Indian Reprint 1996), p. 327, referred to. 
Corpus Juris Secundum, Paras 409, 414, 420, 16 American 
Jurisprudence 2d paras 402, 404 and 407, referred to. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6131 of 
2002. 
13 
Fr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.