Judgement

BOSE, J. -

This is an appeal arising out of convictions in four criminal cases which were tried under the Special Criminal Courts Act, 1942 (Act 24 of 1942). Special leave to appeal was granted by this Court but the leave was confined to the question of the validity of the Act and leave was only granted to the first, second, third, eleventh and fourteenth petitioners.

2. Now that we have heard counsel on both sides at length we consider it unnecessary to decide the constitutional points raised. We are of opinion that the convictions in which sentences for transportation and under have been awarded must in any event stand. That narrows the matter down to the second appellant s case, for he is the only one now under sentence of death.

3. The second appellant Nalband Abdul Rahiman was prosecuted in two cases. In one (criminal case No. 1 of 1948-49) he was convicted under S. 302, 304, Penal Code, and was sentenced to death He was also convicted in the same case under Ss. 333/34 and 326, Penal Code, and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. On a reference to the Chief Justice of Mysore under s. 7 of the Act these convictions and sentences were upheld. In another case (criminal case No. 2 of 1948-49) he was convicted under S. 302 on one count and sentenced to transportation for life and was convicted under S. 148 on another count and sentenced to three years. These convictions and sentences were also upheld on review.

4. The first appellant Phylwan Abdul Khader was also sentenced to death by the Special Judge in criminal case No. 1 of 1948-49 but he was acquitted of the murder charge by the learned reviewing Judge. He was, however, sentenced to transportation for life in criminal case No. 2 of 1948-49 and that was upheld. He was also sentenced to ten years in case No. 1 on charges under Ss. 333/34 and 326 and in case No. 2 to seven years under S. 304 (1), to seven years under S. 326 and to three years under S. 148. These were all upheld on review.

5. We need not set out the convictions and sentences of the remaining appellants. It is enough to say that none of them has been sentenced to death.

6. We will first consider the cases of all the appellants (including the second) except where the second appellant has been sentenced to death in criminal case No. 1 of 1948-49, that is to say, we will take up all those cases in which no sentence of death is outstanding.

7. The only question we have to decide is whether these convictions offend Art. 14 of the Constitution.

8. The Act under which these trials were held empowered the constitution of special Courts. It is not necessary for us to decide whether those trials would have been illegal after the Constitution. We will assume for the purposes of those cases, without deciding the point, that they would. But there is no doubt that the trials were valid before the Constitution and that the convictions in all those cases, which were decided on 5-10-49, were good in law.

9. Section 25 of the Act expressly takes away all rights of appeal and revision and states that-

"...... save as aforesaid, no Court shall have authority to revise such order or sentence . .. . . . or have any jurisdiction of any kind in respect of any proceedings of any such Court."

The provisions "aforesaid" referred to are, so far as these cases are concerned, contained in S. 7 (a).

"If in any proceedings before a Special Judge

(a) a person convicted is sentenced to death or to transportation for life, or to imprisonment for a term of seven years or more.. ..

* * * *

the proceedings shall be submitted for review by a person nominated in this behalf by the Government, which person shall be chosen from the Judges of the High Court, and the decision of that person shall be final."

The cases were submitted at once, namely on 5-10-1949, the date of the convictions. The reviewing Judge was the Chief Justice of the Mysore High Court.

10. While the matters were still pending before the learned Chief Justice, the Constitutio