Ram Chander Bishan Dass and Another vs The State of Pepsu

Mehar Singh, J.—The Appellants Ram Chandar and Sat Parkash have been convicted u/s 181, I.P.C., and each has been sentenced to three months'' rigorous imprisonment by the order, dated. 14-7-1954 of the Special Judge at Kapurthala. They appeal.

The Appellants are alleged to have accepted bribe at Bhatinda within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge of Bhatinda Judicial division. The case was taken cognizance of and was being tried by S. Sardari Lal Chopra as Special Judge for Bhatinda division at Faridkot, evidence for the prosecution had been taken and S. Sardari Lal Chopra reverted from the post of the Special Judge to that Additional District Magistrate, and in his place S. Ranjit Singh Sarkaria was posted as Special Judge in Bhatinda division at Faridkot. Subsequently S. Sardari Lal Chopra was appointed as officiating Sessions Judge at Kapurthala and also as Special Judge there. On a reference made by S. Ranjit Singh Sarkaria my Lord the Chief Justice on 19-5-1954, transferred this case from the Court of the Special Judge at Faridkot to the file of S. Sardari Lal Chopra, officiating "Sessions Judge, Kapurthala." It was S. Sardari Lal Chopra, who convicted and sentenced the Appellants as above.

It is urged by S. Ujagar Singh, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, that the Judge con victing and sentencing the Appellants had no jurisdiction to try the case and the conviction of the Appellants is thus illegal.

According to Section 6, Criminal Law Amend ment Act, 1952 a Special Judge is to be appointed by the State Government for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification to try, among others, an offence u/s 161, I.P.C, and u/s 7(2) of the same Act it is the Special an offence, committed within the area for which he has been appointed. The offence is not tribal by any other Court but that of the Court of the Special Judge for the area. This ease was. Transferred not to the Court of a Special Judge but to the Court of an offi ciatinar Sessions Judge at Kapurthala. It is apparent from consideration of Section 6 and 7 of the said. Act that the offence could not be tried by officiating Sessions Judge at Kapurthala. He had no jurisdiction to try the offence. It could only be tried by a Special Judge.

In his order of 19-5-1954, my Lord the Chief Justice refers in the beginning of the Order to S. Sardari Lal Chopra as Special Judge at Faridkot, but in the operative part of the order it is clearly stated that the case is transferred to the file of S. Sardari Lal Chopra, officiating Sessions Judge, at Kapurthala. So that the trans fer of the case from the Court of the Special Judge at Faridkot to the Court of the officiating Sessions Judge at Kapurthala was not legal and the latter had no jurisdiction to try the case. The consequence is that the convictions of the appel lants cannot be maintained and are set aside.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants points out that there is defective sanction for prosecution of the Appellants in .this case, but in a retrial it will be open to the prosecution to re move such defects, and this cannot be a ground for not ordering retrial.

The convictions of the Appellants are set aside and the case is remitted to the Court of the Special Judge Bhatinda division for trial according to law. The Appellants are present and as they could not expect that they would be required to furnish security for appearance, so they will furnish personal bonds in the amount of Rs. 2,000/- each to the Registrar for them to appear in the Court of the Special Judge Bhatlnda division on 1-8-1955.

It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the only Special Judge for the Bhatinda division is the Additional Sessions Judge at Faridkot and that he is on leave and so there is really no Special Judge for Bhatinda division at present. If this is the state of affairs, it will be brought to the notice of the Hon''ble the, Chief Justice by the Registrar, and I think a'' Special Judge should be appointed by the State Government at once for that division.

It is said that S. Sardari Lal Chopra may join in the first week of August, 1955, but he has already expressed opinion in the case and it may not be possible for him to re-try the cases in which case also the appointment of a Special Judge for the division will be necessary for the trial of this case.