Judgment

P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR J.: These three appeals have been filed with certificates granted by the High Court of Punjab under Art. 134(l)(c) of the Constitution and they arise from three criminal cases filed against the appellant. The appellant Gopi Chand was the chief cashier, and Hukam Chand was an assistant cashier, in the United Commercial Bank Ltd., New Delhi. They were charged with the commission of offences under S. 409 in three separate cases. In the first case No. 223/2 of 1949, the prosecution case was that on or about April 8, 1948, both had agreed to commit, or cause to be committed, criminal breach of trust in respect of the funds of the Bank where they were employed; and in pursuance of the said agreement they had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the total amount of Rs. 1,65,000. They were thus charged under Ss. 408, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was convicted of the offence under S. 409 read with S. 120 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Against this order of conviction and sentence he preferred an appeal to the High Court of Punjab (No. 5-D of 1952). The High Court confirmed his conviction but altered the sentence imposed on him by directing that he should suffer four years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 or in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen months. The order of conviction and sentence thus passed gives rise to Criminal Appeal No. 25 of l955 in this Court.

2. In the second case (No. 221/2 of 1949) the appellant was charged with having committed an offence under Ss. 408 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code in that he had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of an amount of Rs. 23,772-8-6. The trial Magistrate convicted the appellant of the said offence and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. On appeal (No. 6-D of 1952) the order of conviction was confirmed but the sentence imposed on him was reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment. This order has given rise to Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1955 in this Court.

3. In the third case (No. 220/2 of 1949) the appellant, Hukam Chand and Ganga Dayal were charged with having committed an offence under S. 409/408 read with S. 120B of the Indian Penal Code in that all of them had agreed to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of the sum of Rs. 10,000 belonging to the Bank and that in pursuance of the said agreement they had committed the criminal reach of trust in respect of the said amount. The trial Magistrate convicted the appellant of the offence charged and sentence him to four years rigorous imprisonment. On appeal (No 13-D of 1952) the High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment. From this order arises Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1955 in this Court.

4. The appellant has obtained a certificate from the High Court under Art. l34(1) (c) of the Constitution because he seeks to challenge the validity of the order of conviction and sentence passed against him in the three cases on the ground that the proceedings in all the said cases are void. He contends that, whereas the charges framed against him had to be tried according to the procedure prescribed for the trial of warrant cases, the learned trial Magistrate tried all the cases according to the procedure prescribed for the trial of summons cases and that makes void all the proceedings including the final orders of conviction and the sentences.

5. The point arises in this way. The East Punjab Public Safety Act 1949 (Punj. 5 of 1949), hereinafter called the Act, which came into force on March 29, 1949, was passed to provide for special measures to ensure public safety and maintenance of public order. It is common ground that the offences with which the appellant was charged would normally have to be tried under the procedure prescribed by Ch. XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial of warrant cases but in fact they have b