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

1954 (4) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arketing Officer in Central Provinces and Berar for the purchase and movement of blackgram and other grains on behalf of the Madras Government. He, as well as the second petitioner and 44 others, are under prosecution before Shri K. E. Pandey, a Special Magistrate of Nagpur, Madhya Pradesh, in Case No. I of 1949 pending before him on charges of cheating, attempt to commit cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy, (i.e., for offences punishable under section 420 read with section 120-B or 109 of the Indian Penal Code, section 409 and section 409 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code) and the allegation is that by reason of the acts committed by the accused, the Government of Madras had to incur an expenditure of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ith whom the offences were committed. This contention is raised relying on the Privy Council case in Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King(A.I.R. 1948 P.C. 82); (3) Even if the sanction under section 197 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is valid, it is for the very Government which accords the sanction to specify also the Court before which the trial is to be held under section 197(2) and in the absence -of any such specification by the said Government, the power under section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of appointing a Special Magistrate for the trial of the case cannot be exercised by the Madhya Pradesh Government. These points may now be dealt with seriatim. In support of the objection raised under article 14 of the Constit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at behalf. Learned counsel for the State, without conceding the objection raised, has mentioned to us that evidence in that behalf will be given at the trial. It is, therefore, unnecessary to decide the point whether or not the sanction, as it is, and without such evidence is invalid. It is the third point that has been somewhat seriously pressed before us. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is based on sub-section (2) of section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which runs as follows :- The Governor-General or Governor, as the case may be, exercising his individual judgment may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate, or public .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rather than by another at the choice of the Government. The power under section 197(2) appears to be vested in the appropriate Government for being exercised, on grounds of convenience, or the complexity or gravity of the case or other relevant considerations. The argument as to the implication of non-exercise of the power by the appropriate Government under section 197(2) is also untenable. The power to specify a Court for trial in such cases is a permissive power, and there can be no such implication, as is contended for, arising from the non- exercise of the power. This entire argument, however, is based on a misconception of the respective scopes of the powers under, section 197(2) and section 14. The one relates to the Court and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... transferring the case to him as such, he cannot be said to be seized of this case as Special Magistrate. Here again, learned counsel for the State informs us, without conceding the point so taken, that he is prepared to advise the Government to issue the necessary notification and have the case transferred. In view of that statement, it is unnecessary to pronounce on the objection so raised. In the result, all the points raised on behalf of the petitioners fail, and this petition must be dismissed. It is desirable to observe that the questions above dealt with appear to have been raised before the High Court at previous stages by means of applications under article 226 and decided against. No appeals to this Court have been taken against .....

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