Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1965 (10) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... usand rupees" Therefore, no greater penalty than might have-been levied under the old section has been prescribed by the new section 23 (1 ) (a), and consequently there is no breach of art. 20(1) of the Constitution. the offence is alleged to have been committed in 1954 and notice of adjudication was sent in 1958 and now we axe in the year 1965. It would be expedient if the adjudication proceedings are disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Appeal allowed. - C.A. 701 OF 1964 - - - Dated:- 6-10-1965 - GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ), WANCHOO, K.N., HIDAYATULLAH, M., SHAH, J.C. AND SIKRI, S.M., JJ. For the Appellant : S. V. Gupte, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar For the Respondent : G. S. Chatterjee and P. K. Chatterjee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Director on May 13, 1958, in the office of the Calcutta Branch of the Directorate. On, this, on May 13, 1959, the respondent filed a petition under art 226 of the Constitution challenging the adjudication proceeding -on various grounds, the principal grounds being that s. 23 (1) (a) and s. 23D of the Act were ultra vires of art. 20(2) of the Constitution, and that the offence having been committed in 1954, the -proposed adjudication was illegal and entirely without jurisdiction. Before the High Court, at the time of the final hearing, the petitioner was allowed to raise the point that s. 23 ( 1 ) (a) as well as s. 23D contravened art. 14 of the Constitution. Mitter, J. held that s. 23 (1) (a) violated art. 14 of the Constitution a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed on behalf of the appellant, contends that the High Court was in error in holding that the accused had a vested right to be tried by an ordinary criminal court. He says that the amendment only changed the venue of trial from a Magistrate to the Director of Enforcement in some cases and no vested right was affected. He refers to the decision of this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh [1953] S.C.R. 1188. where Jagannadhadas, J., speaking for the Court, observed at p. 1200 as follows. "In this context it is necessary to notice that what is prohibited under article 20 is only conviction or sentence under an ex post facto law and not the trial thereof. Such trial under a procedure different from what obtained at .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the contravention has taken place, or five thousand rupees, whichever is more, as may be adjudged by the Director of Enforcement in the manner hereinafter provided, or.............." "23D. (1) For the purpose of adjudging under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 23 whether any person has committed a contravention the Director of Enforcement shall hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner after giving that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has committed the contravention, he may impose such penalty as he thinks fit in accordance with the provision of the said section 23; Provided that if, at any stage of the inquiry, the Director of Enforcement is of opinion that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... discrimination or the violation of any other fundamental right is involved. It is well recognized that "no person has a vested right in any course of procedure" (vide Maxwell 11th Edition, p. 216), and we see no reason why this ordinary rule should not prevail in the present case. There is no principle underlying art. 20 of the Constitution which makes a right to any course of procedure a vested right. Mr. Chatterjee complains that there is no indication in the Amending Act that the new procedure would be retrospective and he further says that this affects his right of appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code. But if this is a matter of Procedure, then it is not necessary that there should be a special provision to indicate that the new pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates