Back
1964 Supreme(AP) 125
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR, BASI REDDI
Public Prosecutor - Appellant
Versus
Shaik Sheriff - Respondent
Decided On : 07-17-64
The court held that the appointment of the Special Judge was valid, the amendment to the G.O. was valid, and the amendment did not affect the validity of the pending cases.
Headnote:
The court examined the validity of the appointment of a Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, and the scope of their jurisdiction. The court also considered the validity of an amendment to a Government Order (G.O.) appointing Special Judges and the effect of the amendment on pending cases. The court held that the appointment of the Special Judge was valid, the amendment to the G.O. was valid, and the amendment did not affect the validity of the pending cases.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, Shaik Sheriff, was a public servant and was charged with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The case was initially heard by a Special Judge, but the proceedings were quashed by the High Court due to a defect in the appointment of the Special Judge. The Government then passed a fresh G.O. appointing the same Special Judge, but this time the G.O. was amended to remove a restriction on the jurisdiction of the Special Judge. The accused challenged the validity of the amended G.O. and the appointment of the Special Judge, and the case came before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appointment of the Special Judge was valid, the amendment to the G.O. was valid, and the amendment did not affect the validity of the pending cases. The court found that the original G.O. was not invalid and that the learned Special Judge wrongly assumed that it was not valid. The court also found that the Government had power to amend the unamended G.O. 595/1961 under S. 21 of the General Clauses Act and that the Government validly passed order in G. O. No. 281/1962 and that G. O. No. 598/61 as amended by G. O. No. 281/1962 has the same effect as if the amended G. O. were published in full.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of the Special Judge was valid? 2. Whether the amendment to the G.O. appointing Special Judges was valid? 3. Whether the amendment to the G.O. affected the validity of the pending cases?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appointment of the Special Judge was valid because it was made in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, and the General Clauses Act, 1897. 2. The court held that the amendment to the G.O. appointing Special Judges was valid because it was made under the authority of S. 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which gives the Government the power to amend, vary, or rescind any notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws issued by it. 3. The court held that the amendment to the G.O. did not affect the validity of the pending cases because the amendment only removed a restriction on the jurisdiction of the Special Judge and did not create any new offences or change the procedure for trying the cases.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petitions and directed the learned Special Judge, Cuddapah to proceed with the trial of the cases as expeditiously as possible.
( 1 ) IN special cases Nos. 1 and 2 of 1962 , which were pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddapah (special Judge) Shaik Sheriff, who had originally been Municipal Commissioner of Proddatur, was the sole accused. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C. I. D. Hyderabad was the complainant. In each of the charge-sheets, it was mentioned that the accused had committed offences under S. 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Central Act II of 1947 ) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The accused filed Cr. M. P. No. 139 of 1962 praying for being discharged in S. C. No. 1 of 1962. He filed a similar petition, Crl. M. P. No. 1. of 1962, praying for being discharged in S. C. No. 2 of 1962. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Shri P. Anjaneya Raju), after full hearing, allowed the two petitions and passed a common order dated 12-9- 1962 discharging the accused under Section 251 -A (2) Crl. P. C. Against that order, the learned Public Prosecutor has filed Crl. R. C. . No. 712 of 1962 and Crl. R. C. No. 713 of 1962 so far as it relates to the discharge in S. C. No. 2 of 1962. Both the revision petitions, being against a common order, were heard together by common consent.
( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows: The accused was working as the commissioner of the Proddatur Municipality during the period 30-9-1956 to 10-4-1958 and was a Public Servant" as defined in S. 21 I. P. C. The Secretary to Government preferred a complaint against the accused to the Inspector General of Police Andhra Pradesh. The Circle Inspector of Police Crime Branch, C. I. D. Hyderabad, applied to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur buy a letter dated 2-3-1959 requesting for permission to investigate into the offence which came under S. 5 (1) of the Act. In that letter, he mentioned that, on a complaint preferred by the Municipal Commissioner, Proddatur (who was a successor of the shroff for misappropriation of one of the items mentioned in the complaint against the present accused, a case had been registered y the local Polices Proddatur in Crime No. 431 of 1958 under section 408 I. P. C. of Proddatur I town Police Station and was under investigation. The learned judicial First Class Magistrate passed an order dated 4-3-1959 authorising the Inspector of Police to investigate into the said offence. The case was duly investigated. Subsequently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed G. O. Ms. no. 543 dated 19-4-1960 for institution of Criminal Proceedings against the accused and ordered that he be tried in a Court of Law of competent jurisdiction. The G. O. has also stated as follows: "separate orders will issue regarding the appointment of a Special Judge for the purpose under section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952". Accordingly Government passed G. O. . Ms. No. 2242 Home (Courts-B) dated 27-10-1960 stating as follows: "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment act, 1952 (Central Act 46 of 1952), the Governor or Andhra Pradesh hereby appoints the Sub Judge, Cuddapah to be a Special Judge for the trial of the cases against Shri Shaik Sheriff, ex-Municipal Commissioner, Proddatur and Sri D. Venkateswarlu, formerly Head Master, Government Basic Training School, Aluru". This G. O. was duly published as a notification. The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Hyderabad filed two charge sheets on 25-11-1960 before the Special Judge, Cuddapah referred to above. The learned Special Judge registered them as C. C. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1960 and proceeded to hear the cases. Accused filed Cri. R. C. Nos. 109 and 110 of 1961 in this Court to quash the proceedings of the Special Judge. Our learned brother, Kumarayya, J. , heard those petitions and passed a joint order dated 12-8-1961 holding that the original of G. O. of appointment was invalid and that proceedings started by the Special Judg
