Skip to content


In Re: Kanchamreddi Chinna Ranga Reddi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1962CriLJ318
AppellantIn Re: Kanchamreddi Chinna Ranga Reddi and anr.
Excerpt:
- all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5..........proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this act except with the consent of the central governmentand it is also true that in this case the consent was given by the governor of andhra pradesh and not by the central government, but, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 258 of the constitution, the president has delegated to the state governments the functions or the central government under section 7 of the explosive substances act and by virtue of this delegation, the governor of andhra pradesh has, by an order dated november 5, 1959 (ex. p-31) given his consent to the trial of the two accused in this case for offences under the explosive substances act. the notification issued by the president is in the following terms :no. 33/2/57-police.....
Judgment:

Basi Reddy, J.

1. On the evening of the 28th April, 1959 at about 7 P.M. whilst one Narayans Reddy (P.W. 1) was seated on the 'plal1 outside his house in Jutur village, a bomb was hurled at him and as a result of the explosion, although he escaped death, he was seriously wounded in the leg and disabled for life. In connection with' this incident, the two, appellants (who will be referred to as A-l and A-2 respectively) were tried, convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge or Anantapur as under: A-l was convicted Under Section 307 J.P.C. and Under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years under each count. A-2 was convicted Under Section 307 read with Section 109 IPC and Under Section 3 read with Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years under each count. The sentences of both the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.

(Here His Lordship narrated the facts of the case leading to the incident, and after discussing the evidence (Paras 2-21), the judgment proceeded:)

22. In an exhaustive and analytical judgment, the learned Sessions Judge, on a careful appraisal of the evidence in view of the fact that it was of a partisan nature, and after a close examination of the contentions advanced n behalf of the defence, had no hesitation In holding that the complicity of the two accused in the crime had been established beyond all reasonable doubt. He also found that all the ingredient of the offences with .which the accused had been charged were made out and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated supra.

23. The same contentions as were advanced before the learned Sessions Judge and repelled by him, have been repeated before me.

24. Firstly it was contended that the trial of the accused for offences under the Explosive Substances Act is vitiated by reason of the contravention of the provisions of Section 7 of that Act inasmuch as the consent in the present case was given not by the Central .Government as required by Section 7 but by the State (Government It is true that Section 7 provides:

No Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government

and it is also true that in this case the consent was given by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh and not by the Central Government, But, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution, the President has delegated to the State Governments the functions or the Central Government Under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act and by virtue of this delegation, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh has, by an order dated November 5, 1959 (Ex. P-31) given his consent to the trial of the two accused in this case for offences under the Explosive Substances Act. The notification issued by the president is in the following terms :

No. 33/2/57-Police (IV)

Government of India,

Ministry of Home Affairs,

No. 48303, New Delhi-2, the 4th May, 1957.

NOTIFICATION.

In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution and in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject the president hereby entrusts to all State Governments, with their consent, the functions of the Central Government Under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (VI of 1908).' Clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution provides:

Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the President may, with the consent of the Government of a State, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers, functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends.

Now Article 73(1) of the Constitution provides inter alia that

Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power Of the Union shall extend:(a) to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws.

25. Article 246(1) of the Constitution lays that Parliament has exclusive power to make laws .with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule, which is known as the 'Union List'. Item 5 in List I relates to 'Arms, firearms, ammunition and explosives'1,, while item 93 refers to 'Offences against laws with respect to any of the matters in this List'.

26. In my opinion, the combined effect of the foregoing provisions is that the delegation of the functions of the Central Government Under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act is valid and the consent given in this case by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, is not open to challenge.

27. Jin this connection my attention was drawn to a decision of Desai J. in Chaitanya Prakash v. State A.I.R. I960 All 37.6 where the learned [fudge set aside the conviction of the accused in that case Under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act on the' ground that the consent for the trial of the accused had been given by the Governor of the State and not by the Central Government. In the course of the judgment the learned Judge observes:

There is no provision in the Act conferring any power upon the Central Government) t0 delegate its powers and duties to any authority subordinate to it). Section 7 is very clear; it bars a-.Court's taking cognizance of the offence under the Act except with the consent of the Central Government.

Again at page 377, the learned Judge observes:

I do not think any Question of validity of delegation of power arises in the case. The Central Government has not delegated Us power or giving consent to the Governor; what it has done is to give general consent to all prosecutions consented to by him.

28. It does not appear from the judgment that the learned Judge's attention was drawn to-Clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution. There is no knowing how the learned Judge would have viewed the matter, had he considered the effect of that constitutional provision.

29. The other contentions advanced by the learned advocate for the appellants were: (1) that, the principal witnesses for the prosecution are all partisan witnesses and it is therefore unsafe to act on their testimony; (2) that the occurrence must have taken place not at 7 p.m- as alleged by the prosecution but later at 8 or 8-30 p.m. when it would not have been possible either for the victim or for P.Ws. 2 and 4 to have identified the culprits; and (3) that so far as A'2 is concerned, in view of the fact that in the earlier statements made by the witnesses no reference had been made to the alleged instigation by him, his conviction for abetment of the offence Under Section 307 IPC, and for an offence Under Section 3 read with Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, are unsustainable.

30. It is true and this factor has been taken note of by the trial Judge that the main prosecution witnesses are associated with the faction opposed to that of the accused. But that by itself does not render their evidence false. All that is required is that before accepting their evidence, it should be subjected; to very careful scrutiny;

(After discussing the evidence in the rest of this Para and Paras 31-33, the judgment proceeded:)

34. It follows, therefore, that the convictions of the two accused are correct. As regards the punishment, for a preplanned and dastardly crime pi this kind, the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, errs on the side of leniency.

35. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //