Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Dayal and Desai, JJ.
DEODAT RAI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Cri. Misc. Appln 2347 Of 1950
Decided On : 03/15/1951
The Court examined the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Crimes (Special Powers) (Temporary) Act, 1949 (Act 5 of 1949) and the orders passed thereunder. The Court held that the Act was intra vires of the provincial legislature and did not infringe Articles 14, 19, and 22 of the Constitution. However, the Court found that certain provisions of the Act, namely, Section 3(1)(a)(i), (b), and (c), were unconstitutional as they discriminated between habitual criminals who had acquired a bad reputation and those who had not. The Court also held that the orders passed by the Judge under the Act were not revisable by the High Court under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court allowed the applications challenging the orders passed under the Act on the grounds of unconstitutionality and quashed the proceedings in certain cases due to procedural irregularities.
Fact of the Case:
The Court was dealing with a batch of applications challenging the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Crimes (Special Powers) (Temporary) Act, 1949 (Act 5 of 1949) and the orders passed thereunder. The applicants were individuals who had been proceeded against under the Act and had been ordered to give security for good behavior or to keep the peace.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Act was intra vires of the provincial legislature and did not infringe Articles 14, 19, and 22 of the Constitution. However, the Court found that certain provisions of the Act, namely, Section 3(1)(a)(i), (b), and (c), were unconstitutional as they discriminated between habitual criminals who had acquired a bad reputation and those who had not. The Court also held that the orders passed by the Judge under the Act were not revisable by the High Court under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Issues: 1. Whether the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Crimes (Special Powers) (Temporary) Act, 1949 (Act 5 of 1949) was intra vires of the provincial legislature and did not infringe Articles 14, 19, and 22 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 3(1)(a)(i), (b), and (c) of the Act were unconstitutional? 3. Whether the orders passed by the Judge under the Act were revisable by the High Court under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Act was intra vires of the provincial legislature as it fell under Item 2 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Court also held that the Act did not infringe Articles 14, 19, and 22 of the Constitution as it was a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the rights guaranteed by these Articles. 2. The Court held that the provisions of Section 3(1)(a)(i), (b), and (c) of the Act were unconstitutional as they discriminated between habitual criminals who had acquired a bad reputation and those who had not. The Court held that this discrimination was arbitrary and unreasonable and violated the principle of equality before the law. 3. The Court held that the orders passed by the Judge under the Act were not revisable by the High Court under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the Judge was not an inferior criminal court and therefore his orders were not subject to revision by the High Court.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the applications challenging the orders passed under the Act on the grounds of unconstitutionality and quashed the proceedings in certain cases due to procedural irregularities.
( 1 ) APPLICATION No. 210 is under Sections 435 and 439, Criminal P. C. for revision of an order passed by the Ses. J. of Ballia ordering the applicant to give security under Section 3 (1) (a) (i), d. P. Prevention of Crimes (Special Powers) (Temporary) Act, No. 5 of 1949. On 24-8-1949, a first Class Magistrate issued a notice under Section 3 (1) (a) v (i) calling upon the applicant to show cause why he should not be bound down for being of good behaviour for two years. It was alleged that he is by repute a bad character and is a habitual burglar and dacoit. In the column of particulars are mentioned four suspicions in cases of burglary and dacoity. On the same date the magistrate passed an order under S. 4 of the Act requiring the applicant to give security for being of good behaviour during the disposal of the proceedings and directing him to be arrested in default. On 28-8-1949, the applicant was arrested in pursuance of this order. He denied the allegations made against him by the police, The Magistrate forwarded the record of his case to the learned Ses. J. on 12-9-1949. Both the jurors were of the opinion that action should be taken against him, and the learned Ses. J. on 17-10 1949 passed the order under revision binding the applicant to be of good behaviour for two years.
( 2 ) THERE are seven connected applications by other persons against whom similar orders have been passed under the Act. As common questions of law are involved, it is convenient to dispose of all of them together.
( 3 ) REVISION Application No. 211 of 1960 is by Ram Piari Rai. The Magistrate issued a notice on 24-8-1949 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be bound down for two years on account of his being by repute a bad character, habitual dacoit and burglar and so dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community. In the column of the particulars is mentioned that he was suspected in a case of burglary in 1948 and that he bears the reputation of being a bad character, burglar and dacoit. On the same date the Magistrate ordered him to give security for being of good behaviour during the disposal of the proceedings and directed him to be arrested in default. On 4-9-1949 the applicant was arrested in pursuance of this order on his failure to give the security. He denied the allegations made against "him. The magistrate referred his case to the Ses. J. of Ballia on 19-9-1949. Both the jurors were of the opinion that action should be taken against the applicant, and the learned Ses. J. pasted an order on 6-10-1949 binding him down to be of good behaviour for two years under Section 3 (1) (a) (i) and (c ). He questions that order by an application under Sections 435 and 439, Cr. P. C.
( 4 ) CRIMINAL Revision Application No. 212 of 1950 is by Komal Pandey. A notice under Section 3 was issued against him by a Magistrate on 24-8-1949, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be bound down to be of good behaviour for two years on the ground of his being by repute a bad character, habitual burglar and dacoit and so dangerous as to render his remaining at large without security hazardous to the community. In the column of particulars and materials are mentioned his two previous convictions, the fact of his being suspected in a case of burglary of 1948 and his being reputed to be a bad character, habitual thief and dacoit. On the same date the magistrate issued an order under Section 4 binding the applicant down to be of good behaviour for the duration of the proceedings and directing him to be taken in custody in default. On 4-9-1949 the applicant was arrested on his failure to give the security. The applicant denied the allegations made against him. The Magistrate referred his case to the Ses. J. of Ballia. Both the jurors were of the opinion that action should be taken against him, and the learned Ses. J. on 24-10-1949 passed an order binding him down to be of good behaviour for two years u
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
