Skip to content


G.A. Natarajan Vs. Republic of India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in35(1969)CLT1092; 1970CriLJ113
AppellantG.A. Natarajan
RespondentRepublic of India
Excerpt:
.....loan. then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the act, 1972 or the act, 1951. [air 2002 orissa 130 overruled]. - sub-section (3) provides for removal of doubts relating to appeals and revisions against any judgment, order or sentence pending immediately before the commencement of the 1967 amending act as well as those filed after such commencement. the said provision makes no reference as to the manner in which the trial court has dealt with it or if the trial court bad proceeded on the basis of sub-section (3) of section5 of the old act. therefore, this appeal clearly comes within the aforesaid provision and has to be remanded for..........for removal of doubts relating to appeals and revisions against any judgment, order or sentence pending immediately before the commencement of the 1967 amending act as well as those filed after such commencement. the present case comes under the former category. the appeal was filed on 1-5-67 and was pending immediatel before the commencement of the 1967 amending act. in such cases, the provision is that any court where such appeal or application for revision is pending shall remand the case for trial in conformity with the provisions of this section. the said provision makes no reference as to the manner in which the trial court has dealt with it or if the trial court bad proceeded on the basis of sub-section (3) of section5 of the old act. therefore, this appeal clearly comes within.....
Judgment:

A. Misra, J.

1. The appellant has filed an application for setting aside the Conviction and sentence and remanding the case for fresh disposal to the court below, in view of the provisions enacted in the Anti.Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act, 1967. The judgment in this case convicting the appellant was delivered on 29-4-67 and the appeal before this Court was filed on 1-5-67. The Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act came into force on 5-5-67. Therefore, it is urged that under Sub-sections. (2) and (3) of Section 2 of the said Amending Act, 1967, this case has to be remanded for retrial.

2. Learned Government-Advocate, while not disputing the statements of fact, contends that the judgment of the Special Judge shows that the appellant was prosecuted and convicted keeping in view Sub-section (8) of Section 5 of the 1947 act as it stood before its deletion under the 1964 Amending Act. To such a case, the provisions of the 1967 Amending act on which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for appellant will not apply.

3. On a consideration of the relevant provisions, in my opinion, the contention of learned Government-Advocate cannot be accepted and the prayer of appellant must be sustained. The trial in this case started under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as they stood prior to the amendment in 1964. By the 1964 Amending sot, 8. 5 (8) was deleted and in its place Sub-section (1) (e) was substituted. Section 2(1)(b) of the 1967 Amending Act lays down that notwithstanding any judgment or order of any Court, Sub-section (3) of Section 5 as it stood immediately be fore the commencement of the 1964 Act, shall apply and shall be deemed always to have applied to and in relation to trials of offences punishable under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the 1947 sot, pending before any Court immediately before such commencement. Sub-section (2) of 8. 2 permits the accused to demand in pending cases that the trial should proceed from the stage at which it was immediately before the commencement of the 1964 act and it is obligatory on the Court to comply with this demand. Sub-section (3) provides for removal of doubts relating to appeals and revisions against any judgment, order or sentence pending immediately before the commencement of the 1967 Amending act as well as those filed after such commencement. The present case comes under the former category. The appeal was filed on 1-5-67 and was pending immediatel before the commencement of the 1967 Amending Act. In such cases, the provision is that any Court where such appeal or application for revision is pending shall remand the case for trial in conformity with the provisions of this section. The said provision makes no reference as to the manner in which the trial Court has dealt with it or if the trial Court bad proceeded on the basis of Sub-section (3) of Section5 of the old Act. Therefore, this appeal clearly comes within the aforesaid provision and has to be remanded for retrial in conformity with the provisions as laid down in the Amending Act.

4. Hence, I allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the case be remanded to the Special Judge for trial and disposal in conformity with the provisions contained in the 1967 Amending Act.


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