STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SNADI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are on a certificate under Art. 134 (1)(c) of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Punjab.

(2.) The respondent was employed as an Accountant in the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jullundur in 1949. He is said to have embezzled certain sums of money in 1949 which came to light in 1950. A case was registered against him at the Jullundur Cantonment Police Station on the 15th of August, 1950. Three cases were started against the respondent. In those cases charges were framed against him under Ss. 409 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. These cases had almost reached the stage of decision when the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 (Act 46 of 1952) came into force. According to the provisions of that Act all offences covered by the Prevention of Corruption Act were triable by the Court of a Special Judge. Accordingly, the three cases against the respondent were sent to a Special Judge. The respondent was discharged by the Special Judge on an objection taken by him that the cases had not been investigated in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court of Punjab set aside the orders of discharge and directed the Special Judge to proceed with the trial of the cases. The learned Judge of the High Court took this course as he followed the decision of a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court which governed the matter.

(3.) When the trials were resumed an objection was raised to the effect that the charges under S. 409 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not proceed side by side in view of a certain decision of the Punjab High Court. The Public Prosecutor conceded that that was so and the charge under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was formally withdrawn. The Special Judge accordingly discharged the respondent. The three cases against the respondent were then sent to a Magistrate. The respondent again objected that the charges under S. 409 could not be tried by the Magistrate. The objection was allowed and the Magistrate held that the trial of the respondent could only proceed under the other charges, namely, Ss. 420, 465, 468 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code.