Skip to content


Dr. Kailash Nath Haldiya Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1971
Judge
Reported in1974WLN605
AppellantDr. Kailash Nath Haldiya
RespondentState of Rajasthan
Cases ReferredCourt State v. Ram Prasad (supra
Excerpt:
.....can be raised in the appellate court.;(b) criminal law (amendment) act, 1952 - sections 6 & 7--state government did not specified which of the two special judges could try an offence committed by accused--held, special judge, jaipur city could not conduct trial of accused.;under section 7(2) of the act, it was necessary for the state government to specify which of the two special judges would try the offences stated to have been committed by the appellant. as the state government did not, by any notification, empower the special judge, jaipur city, to try the offences with which the appellant was charged, it can be safely held that the special judge, jaipur city, could not conduct the trial of this case against the appellant since he was not the only special judge appointed fur the..........judge no 1, jaipur city, in whose court the challan was submitted, was not specified by the state government as the special judge who would try the offences with which the appellant had been charged. hence he strenuously urged that the special judge no. 1, jaipur city, was not competent to try the appellant for these offences, because he was not the only special judge appointed for the area of the jaipur city, there being one more judge having been appointed as a special judge for the whole of rajasthan including that area. in support of his above contention, the leraned counsel invited my attention to sub-section (2) or 87 of the criminal law (amendment) act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the act, and relied upon an authority of the mysore high court ananthashya nacharya.....
Judgment:

K.D. Sharma, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by Dr. Kailash Nath Haldiya against a judgment of the learned Special Judge, Jaipur City, by which he was convicted under Section 420, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year on the first count and to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months on the second count. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case against the appellant was that he was working on the post of Superintending Medical, Officer, National Smallpox Eradication Programme Unit, Jaipur during the period between 13-6-1964 and 15-6-1964 (both days inclusive). While functioning as such, he started from Jaipur in the morning of 13-6-1964 in a Government-owned jeep-car No. MRB 483 (now RSL 1871) driven by Shri Chandu Lal driver, on the pretext of touring the area within his jurisdiction on official duty. Instead of utilising the said Government-owned jeep-car for his official tour, he took it to Rewari, which is situated outside the territory of the State of Rajasthan. He reached Rewari in the evening and stayed there till morning or 15.6.1964, on he occasion of marriage of his relative fie returned from Rewari on 16.6.1964 along with his family consisting of two sons, two daughters and one sister-in-law. At Rewari the appellant purchased 52.5 liters of petrol from the shop of his father-in-law on credit as is evident from the account-books of the said shop. On his way back to Jaipur, the appellant issued a petrol coupon No 230 dated 15.6 1964 to M/s. Jhandi Prasad Parmeshwarlal, petrel dealer at Shahpura, for purchasing 51.5 litres of petrol and one litre of mobil oil in Government account, but instead of taking petrol & mobil oil for his jeep-car, he sold the same through the Munim of the abid firm & dishonestly pocketed the sale proceeds thereof Likewise Dr. Haldiya issued on 15-6-1964, one more petrol coupon No. 229 dated 14-6-94 for obtaining EO litres of petrol on Government account in order to create false evidence that this quantity of petrol was purchased by him on 14.6.1964, though in fact it was got on 15 6-1964. Dr. Haldiya, however, suppressed the fact of having taken Government-owned jeep-car to Rewari by omitting to make necessary entries in the lie book of the said jeep car and fraudulently made false entries in the log-bock in his own handwriting and signatures in order to show that he had gone on tout in the area within his jurisdiction. He further made false entries about his visit to Band kui in the logbook on 16.6.1964 in order to cover up the mileage undertaken in his trip to Rewari. In this manner, he cheated the Rajasthan Government by abusing his official position He further obtained ills gal pecuniary advantage for himself by submitting false T.A and D.A. bills of his tours from 13-6-1964 to 16-6-1964 showing therein his visits to Dausa, Lalsot, Balona, Shivsinghpura, Ramparh, Dausa, and night halt at Bandikui on 13.6.1964, to Baswa, Rajgarh, Alwar, Katputli, Rajnota, Shahpura and night halt atKotputli on 14-6-1964 and from Kotputli to Jaipur on 15 6.1964 and, in this manner, disnenestly drew daily allowance of four days from the Government treasury, although he knew it well that such trips were never undertaken by him in his official capacity.

3. Shri Motilal Dabi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department. Jaipur, received a credible information from some secret source that one officer had cheated the Government by abusing his official position and had obtained illegal pecuniary advantage for himself by preparing false T.A. and D.A bills and drawing the amounts thereof knowing it well that the journeys for which T.A. and D.A. bills were prepared and amounts drawn had not been undertaken by him for official work. The Deputy Superintendent, Anti Corruption started investigation into the case & eventually, upon investigation, it was found that it was the appellant who had taken Government owned jeep-car to Rewari for his private work and had cheated the Government and obtained illegal pecuniary advantage for himself by making false entries in the log-book of the jeep-car and by drawing daily allowance for four days through false T.A. and D.A. bills. After collecting necessary evidence the Deputy Superintendent of Police obtained necessary sanction to prosecute the appellant from the Governor and submitted a charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 420, 468, 471, I.P.C. and under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the court of the Special Judge No. 1, Jaipur City.

4. The learned Special Judge, Jaipur City, tried the appellant for the aforesaid charges and found him guilty of the offences of cheating punishable under Section 420, IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as stated above. He acquitted the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471, IPC Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court.

5. I have carefully gone through the record and heard arguments advanced by Shri Bhim Raj Purohit for the appellant and Shri G.A. Khan appearing on behalf of the State.

6. Shri Bhim Raj appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised an objection to the competency of the Special Judge, Jaipur City to try the appellant. According to him, at the time when the challan was filed against the appellant in the court of the Special Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, there were more' than one Special Judge for the area within which the offences were alleged to have been committed by the appellant. The Special Judge No 1, Jaipur City, in whose court the challan was submitted, was not specified by the State Government as the Special Judge who would try the offences with which the appellant had been charged. Hence he strenuously urged that the Special Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, was not competent to try the appellant for these offences, because he was not the only Special Judge appointed for the area of the Jaipur City, there being one more Judge having been appointed as a Special Judge for the whole of Rajasthan including that area. In support of his above contention, the leraned Counsel invited my attention to Sub-section (2) or 87 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and relied upon an authority of the Mysore High Court Ananthashya Nacharya Dambal v. State of Mysore 1964 CrLJ 486. The leraned Counsel further argued that the sanction obtained by the prosecution to prosecute the appellant also did not specify that this case would be tried by Special Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, and therefore, the learned Special Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, could not claim competence to try the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant. Shri G.A. Khan, appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, argued that an objection relating to the competence of the Special Judge No. 1, Jaipur City to try the appellant was not taken in the trial court and that it is not now open to the appellant to contend before this Court that the trial Judge was not empowered to try the offences. According to him, the objection does not relate to the existence of jurisdiction, because the learned Special Judge No 1, Jaipur City, had jurisdiction to try the case At the most, it can be treated as an objection to the exercise of jurisdiction in an irregular manner. In support, of his above contention, Shri G A Khan placed reliance on Section 462 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (corresponding to Section 531 of the old Code), and on two authorities State v. Ram Prasad and Ram Chandra v. State of Bihar : 1961CriLJ811 .

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. It is not disputed before me that the offence 'punishable under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is alleged to have been committed by 'he appellant in this case, falls within the purview of Section 6(1) of the Act. This offence can be tried by Special Judge only as laid down under sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. While trying this offence the Special Judge could also try any offence other than the offence specified in Section 6 of the Act, with which the appellant was charged at the same trial Under Section 6 of the Act, the State Government may appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas, as may be specified in the notification issued in this behalf in the Official Gazetted for try an offence punishable under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 161, 165 and 165A. IPC. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, if there are more Special Judges than one appointed for a particular area, every offence specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be tried by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government. The question, therefore that arises for determination is whether there were more Special Judges than one for Jaipur City on the date when the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the court of the Special Judge, Jaipur City and' whether any one of them was specified by the State Government to try the offences which were stated to have been committed by the appellant. The decision of this question requires a careful stuny of the several notifications issued from time to time in this behalf by the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 6(1) of the Act. The first notification issued in this behalf is dated 26th August, 1952 and it reads as below:

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (No. XLVI of 1952), the Government of Rajasthan is pleased to appoint all the Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges in Rajasthan in virtue of their office, to be Special Judges within their respective jurisdiction for the purposes of the said Act

By virtue of this notification the Sessions Judge and the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City were appointed to be Special Judges for the area within their jurisdiction for the purposes of the said Act. The second notification was issued on 18th November, 1955, and it is as follows:

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 (Central Act XLVI of 1952) and in partial modification No. F.2(9) Jud/62 dated the 26tb August, 1952, the Government of Rajasthan is pleased to appoint the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, to be Special Judge also for the trial of all cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment involving offences punishable under Sections 161 or 165 or 165A, of the Indian Penal Code or Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Central Act IF of 1947) with jurisdiction over the whole State of Rajasthan.

By this notification, the State Government appointed Sessions Judge, Jaipur City to be Special Judge also for the trial of all cases investigated by Delhi Spec-al Police Establishment involving offences specified therein. The third important notification issued in this behalf is dated 26th February, 1958. It reads as under:

In pursuance of Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, (Central Act No. XLVI of 1952) read with Section 7(2) of the said Act and in supersession of previous notifications in this behalf, the State Government hereby--

(I) appoints the Sessions Judges Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges specified in column 2 of the sub joined Schedule, by virtue of their office to be Special Judges to exercise jurisdiction respectively, in the are mentioned against each in column 4 thereof in respect of the cases other than those investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment.

(ii) appoints the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, to be Special Judge with jurisdiction over the whole of the State of Rajasthan for the trial of cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. THE SCHEDULE----------------------------------------------------------------------Serial Name of Head Area of jurisdictionNumber Court quaters as Special Judge----------------------------------------------------------------------1. 2. 3 4.---------------------------------------------------------------------Bikaner Division(1) X X XAjmer Division.(4) Sessions Jaipur Jaipur City (MunicipalJudge, limits)JaipurCity(5) Sessions Jaipur Jaipur DistrictJudge (excluding MunicipalJaipur limits of Jaipur City)District(6) X X X

By this notification the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, was appointed by virtue of his office to be a Special Judge to exercise jurisdiction in the area of Jaipur City (Municipal limits) in respect of cases other than those investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. By para 2 he was appointed to be Special Judge having jurisdiction over the whole of the State of Rajasthan for the trial of cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. Later on, by another notification dated 20th May, 1965. the State Government made the following amendment in the said Notification dated 26th February, 1958:

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 (Central Act XLVI of 1952) and in supersesion of this Department Notifications No. F.26(90) Ju/62 dated the 7th July, 1964 and No. F 1(14) Jud/64, dated the 15th May, 1965, the St tit Government hereby makes the following amendment to the Department Notification No. D 386/F.3(2)LJ/B/58, dated the 26th February, 1958, namely:

AMENDMENT

In the said Notification, in para (ii), before the Schedule, for the expression 'Sessions Judge, Jaipur City' the expression 'Special Judge No 2, Jaipur' shall be substituted '

Another Notification was issued by the State Government on 15th June, 1965, whereby Shri D.D. Gupta, Officiating Civil and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, was appointed Special Judge No. 2 for the whole of Rajasthan to try the offences specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. This notification reads as follows:

In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section (6) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Central Act XLVIof 1952) the State Government hereby appoints Shri D.D. Gupta, Officiating Civil and Additional Sessions Judge. Jaipur City as a Special Judge No. 2 for the whole of Rajasthan to try the offences specified in the said Sub-section.

The Notification No F.26(90) Jud/62, dated the 30th November 1963 may be treated as cancelled with effect from the date Shri D.D. Gupta takes over charges as such Judge from Shri Bipin Chandra Ojha.

From this notification, it is evident that the State Government appointed another Special Judge for the whole of Rajasthan to try offences specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of the Act the first one being already appointed by Notification No. L.386/F. 3(2)LJ (B)/68 dated 26th February, 1958 for the area falling within the Municipal limns of Jaipur City. This notification was later on followed by another Notification No. F 19(23) Jud/66 dated 17ih July, 1967, whereby the State Government was pleased to appoint Shri Gopal Sahai Sharma, Officiating Civil and Additional Sessions Judge as Special Judge with his headquarters at Jaipur for the whole of Rajasthan to try the offences specified in the said Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. This notification issued subsequently reads as below:

In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6ofth Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (Central Act XLVI of 1952) and in consultation with the High Court, the State Government is pleased to appoint Shri Gopal Sahai Sharma, Officiating Civil and Additional Sessions Judge as Special Judge, win his headquarters at Jaipur for the whole of Rajasthan to try the offences specified in the said Sub-section.

From a bare reading of these notifications it appears that on the date, i.e. 26.4.1968, on which a challan was presented against the appellant in the court of the Special Judge, Jaipur City, there were Special Judges more than one for the area covered by the municipal limits, Jaipur City. Shri G.A. Khan, appearing on behalf of the State, could not produce any notification to how that Notification No. F.19(23) Jud/66, dated 17th July, appointing Shri Gopal Sahai Sharma, Officiating Civil and Additional Sessions Judge as Special Judge with his headquarters at Jaipur for the whole of Rajasthan to try the offences specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act was canceled or superseded later on by the Government of Rajasthan on or before 26.4.1968 on which date the appellant was challaned in the court of the Special Judge, Jaipur City. On the other band, Shri Bhim Raj Purohit, counsel for the appellant, filed a certified copy of the order-sheet dated 4.3.1970 of the court of Special Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, in case No. 11 of 1970: State v. Dr. B.N. Jatshi signed by Shri Gopal Sahai in order to show that Shri Gopal Sahai was continuing as a Special Judge No, 2 Jaipur City till 4 3 1970. In view of these fact, it can he safely held that for the area of Jaipur City (municipal limits) there were two Special Judges on 29.4.1968, one was Sessions Judge Jaipur City, who by virtue of his Office was appointed to be Special Judge for that area by virtue of-Notified ion dated 26.2.1968. The other was shri Gopal Sahai Sharma, Officiating City and Additional Sessions Judge. Jaipur City, whose appointment as Special Judge was made vide Notification, No F 19/23, Jul/66, dated 17th July, 1967 and who continued to hold this post atleast till 4.3.1970. There is no dispute that the Special fudge No. 1. Jaipur City was not specified by the State Government as the Special Judge who would try the offence with which the appellant had been charged. Tie sanction Ex. P 3 obtained in this case to prosecute the appellant does not reveal that any such specification as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act was made by the State Government for trial of the offences which were stated to be committed by the appellant. The relevant portion of sanction is as follows:

Dr. K.N. Haldia is removeable from his office by the order of the Governor, now therefore in pursuance of Section 107 Cr. P.C. and Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption the Governor of Rajasthan is pleased to accord sanction for the prosecution of said Dr. K.N. Haldia for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the competent court of law.

The pertinent question that arises for decision, therefore, is whether in the absence of specification as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, the learned Special judge, Jaipur City, who has tried this case, could have jurisdiction to try offences which were stated to have been committed by the appellant within the municipal limits of Jaipur City. The answer to this question may be found in Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, which is follows:

7 (2) Every offence specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which it was committed or where there are more Special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government.

This Sub-section clearly enacts that where the number of Special Judges is more than one for any particular area, it is necessary for the State Government to specify which one of those Special Judges shall try the offence? with which accused is charged. If there is no such specification as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act either in the sanction itself or in a notification issued in this behalf, a particular Judge for that area cannot have the competence to try chat offence, because, hi is not the only Special Judge appointed for that area, there being person or persons hiving been appointed as Special Judges for the same area. To my mind, it appears that by enacting Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, the intention of the legislature was that ordinarily every offence specified in Sub-section (1) or Section 6 of the Act shall be tried by a Special Judge appointed for the area within which it was committed, but if more Special Judges than one are appointed for the same area, such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government. In this view of the matter, the learned Special Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, had no jurisdiction to try, the offences committed by the appellant within the municipal limits of Jaipur City, because on 26.4.1938 on which date the present challan was presto td against the appellant, there was another Special Judge No 2 appointed for the whole of Rajasthan, including municipal limits of Jaipur City to try these offences and because it was not specified by the State Government as which one of the two Special Judges would try the offences with which the appellant had been charged. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the Mysore, High Court in the referred to above case of Anonthashayanacharya Dambal v. State of Mysore, wherein their Lordships have made the following observations:

If the Government did not by the notification by which it appointed Mr Range Gowda or by any subsequent notification confer power upon Mr. Range Gowda to try the offence with which the petitioner was charged, it is clear, that Mr. Range Gowda cannot claim the competence to try that offence since he is not the only Special Judge appointed for the District of Bijapur, there being two more having been appointed as Special Judges for that area.

(ii) It is thus clear that Mr. Range Gowda has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case against the accused. We issue a writ of prohibition restraining Mr. Range Gowda from proceeding with that case.

8. It is undoubtedly true that an objection relating to the competency of the Special Judge, Jaipur City, to try the appellant was not taken in the trial court, but as this objection relates to the existence of jurisdiction and does not merely relate to the exercise of it in an irregular manner, it goes to the root of the case and can be raised in the appellate court as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R.J. Ahuluwalia v. State of Delhi 1970 UJ (SC) 885 at p. (887). The relevant observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court on this point are quoted below:

The appellant's leraned Counsel asked for permission to raise a new point in challenge of this sanction. The new point sought to attack the sanction on two-fold ground. In the first instance he contended that this sanction was granted for prosecution under Section 6(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and not under Section 6(1)(a). Secondly, it was contended that in the case of the appellant it was only the Home Department of the Government of India which could sanction the prosecution. This argument was founded or Gazette Notification No. SG 2494 dated August 3.1935 which amended the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 pursuant to the powers conferred on the President by Clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution. This ground of challenge had, of course, not been raised in either of the two courts below but since it went to the root of the case, being a jurisdictional point, we considered it just and proper to allow it to be raised.

Consequently, I do not subscribe to the view of Shri G.A. Khan appearing on behalf of State that the objection relates to the exercise of jurisdiction in an irregular manner and that the irregularity, if any, in the exercise of jurisdiction has not the effect of vitiating the trial. The rulings cited by Shri G.A. Khan for the State are not on the point involved in this case. In Ram Chandra v. State of Bihar (supra), the challan was presented against the accused before the Magistrate at Dhanbad for an offence punishable under Section 161, Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The case was later on transferred by the High Court to the court of Munsiff-Magistrate at Patna upon an application by the accused After the order of transfer was passed, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, came in force. The case, therefore, was sent to the Special Judaic, Patna for trial in view of Section 10 of the Act. The accused was tried by the Special Judge of Patna and convicted. The accused preferred an appeal against the conviction. In the appeal it was argued on behalf of the accused that the Special Judge at Manbhum alone could have tried the case. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected this contention for the accused on the ground that there was nothing in Section 10 of the Act which bars the application of Section 531 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that in view of Section 531 of the Cr. P.C. the order of the Special Judge convicting the accused appellant could not be set aside merely because the Special Judge of Patna had m territorial jurisdiction to try the case when no prejudice was shown to have been caused to the accused in any way. In the instant case, the Special Judge, Jaipur City had territorial jurisdiction to try the case by virtue of notification date 26.2.1958, as indicated above. The question involved in this case is whether in the absence of any specification by the State Government as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, he could try the offences with which the appellant was charged. In the Division Bench ruling of this Court State v. Ram Prasad (supra), the contention raised was that the Special Judge could be appointed by the State Government for an area or areas but not by class of cases. The Division Bench of this Court while rejecting the above contention, observed as follows:

It would have been quite in order if in the present case an order had been passed by the State Government that the present case be tried by the Special Judge, Jaipur City The same result has been achieved by a general order that the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment shall be tried by the Special Judge, Jaipur City.

As the present case has not been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, the above observations made by the Division Bench of this Court are not applicable to this case. Consequently, I am of the view that under Section 7(2) of the Act, it was necessary for the State Government to specify which of the two Special Judges would try the offences stated to have been committed by the appellant. As the State Government did not, by any notification, empower the Special Judge, Jaipur City, to try the offences with which the appellant was charged, it can be safely held that the Special Judge, Jaipur City, could not conduct the trial of this case against the appellant since he was not the only Special Judge appointed for the area within the municipal limits of Jaipur City, there being an other Special Judge having been appointed for the whole of Rajasthan including the aforesaid area In the view that I have taken, it is not necessary for me to give a decision on other points which have been argued before me relating to the merits of the case.

10. The result is that I accept the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellant under Section 420.I.P.C and Section 6 (1) (d) read with Section 6 (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground that the learned Special Judge, Jaipur City, was not competent to try aforesaid offences against the, appellant as he was not specified by the State Government as directed by Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act as the Special Judge who could try the offences with which the appellant had been charged. Dr. Kailash Nath Haldiya is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled.


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