Judgement

S. R. Das J.: This is a petition for a writ in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus calling upon the respondents to show cause why the petitioner, who is now confined in the Central Jail at Rewa, should not be set at liberty. The petitioner s grievance is that he has been deprived of his liberty otherwise than in accordance with procedure established by law. A rule nisi having been issued, the respondents have filed an affidavit by way of return to the writ. The question for our decision is whether the return is good and sufficient in law.

2. The facts leading up to the present petition are few and simple. In the years 1948 and 1949 the petitioner was the Minister of Industries in the Government of Vindhya Pradesh which was at that time an acceding State within the meaning of Section 6 of the Government of India Act, 1935 as amended in 1947. On the 11th April 1949 the petitioner was arrested in Delhi on the allegation that he had accepted illegal gratification in order to show favour to Panna Diamond Mining Syadicate in the matter of the lease of the Diamond Mines at Panna. In December, 1949 the petitioner along with one Mohan Lal, who was the then secretary in the Ministry of Industries, was put up for trial before the Court of Special Judge, Rewa, constituted under the Vindhya Pradesh Criminal Law Amendments (Special Courts) Ordinance No. V of 1949. The charges were under Sections 120-D 161, 465 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code as adapted for Vindhya Pradesh by the Indian Penal Code (Application to Vindhya Pradesh) Ordinance No. XLVIII of 1949.

By his judgment pronounced on the 26th July 1950 the Special Judge acquitted both the accused. The State preferred an appeal against that acquittal to the Judicial Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh. By his judgment pronounced on the 10th March 1951 the Judicial Commissioner reversed the order of acquittal, convicted both the accused and sentenced them to different terms of rigorous imprisonment under the different sections in addition to the payment of certian fines. On the application of the petitioner and his co-accused the Judicial Commissioner on the 12th March 1951 issued a certificate to the effect that four points of law raised in the case and formulated by him in his order were fit for the consideration of this Court in appeal under Article l34 of the Constitution of India. A petition of appeal was filed in this Court on the strength of this certificate of fitness and it was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1951.

3. As the case involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, it was, in April 1953, placed before a Bench of five Judges of this Court as required by Article 145(3) of the Constitution. For convenience of reference we shall call a Bench of five or more Judges as the Constitution Bench. The validity of the convictions and sentences was challenged before the Constitution Bench on the ground that there had been infringements of Articles 14 and 20 of the Constitution. A further point of law was raised that no appeal lay to the Judicial Commissioner from the acquittal by the special Judge. By their judgment pronounced on the 22nd May 1953 the Constitution Bench rejected all these objections. The judgment concluded with the following direction:

"The appeal is accordingly directed to be posted for consideration whether it is to be heard on merits."

This was evidently done in view of the fact that the certificate of fitness granted by the Judicial Commissioner was limited only to four points of law.

4. The constitutional points having been disposed of, the appeal was placed before a Division Bench of three Judges who on the 20th October 1953 ordered the appeal to be heard on the merits. The appeal was accordingly put up for hearing before another Division Bench consisting of three Judges. On the 5th March 1954 this Division Bench allowed the appeal of Mohan Lal and acquitted him but dismissed the appeal of the petitioner with