SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(SC) 300

A. K. SARKAR, B. P. SINHA, J. R. MUDHOLKAR
Payare Lal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent


Advocates:
C.L.SARIN, D.GUTPA, Jai Gopal Sethi, N.S.BINDRA, R.H.Dhebar, R.L.Kohli

Judgment

SARKAR, J. : The appellant Payare Lal was the Tehsildar of Patiala. He and Bishan Chand, a Patwar clerk of the Tehsil Office, were prosecuted for offences under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Act XLVI of 1952), to which it will be convenient hereafter to refer as the Act, required the trial to be held by a special Judge appointed under it and in accordance with certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure mentioned in S. 8 of the Act. The principal question in this appeal turns on the construction of sub-sec.(1) of this section which we will later set out.

2. The trial commenced before S. Narinder Singh the special Judge, Patiala. He heard the evidence but before he could deliver a judgment he was transferred and was succeeded by S. Jagjit Singh. S. Jagjit Singh did not recall the witnesses and hear the evidence over again, but proceeded without any objection from either side, with the trial from the stage at which his predecessor had left it and having heard the arguments of the advocates for the parties, delivered his judgment convicting both, the accused of the offences with which they had been charged and






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top