STATE Vs. PYAREY MOHAN LAL SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the State against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Lucknow holding that by virtue of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act 46 of 1952), he had no jurisdiction to continue the trial of the case. Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952 is in these words : "7(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act 5 of 1898) or in any other law the offences specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 shall be triable by Special Judges only. '

(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.

(3.) When trying any case, a Special Judge may also try any offence other than an offence specified in Section 6 with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be charged at the same trial." (2) The facts of the present case need be stated now. The opposite party Pyarey Mohan Lal Srivastava along with five others was suspected of having committed an offence cf taking bribe. Pyarey Mohan Lal Srivastava v/as suspended from his duties on 7-12-1948. The matter was investigated by the police, who submitted a charge sheet on 20-3-1950. The trial commenced before the committing Magistrate on 6-4-1950, and an order of commitment was made by the Magistrate on 28-5-1951, that is to say, the proceedings remained in the Court of the Magistrate for over one year; indeed 72 witnesses were examined before the Magistrate on behalf of the prosecution. On 21-4-1952, the trial opened in* the Court of Session and continued in that Court from day to day except Fridays, Saturdays and other public holidays upto 27-8-1952. The prosecution examined no less than 54 witnesses before the Sessions Judge. In the conduct of the trial from the stage at which the enquiry started in the Court of the Committing Magistrate to the date when the learned Sessions Judge made his order, which is the subject-matter of this revision, namely, 15-12-1952, there has not only been an extraordinary amount of delay, but there has also been a good deal of recording of evidence, which obviously means expenditure of time and money of the accused. If the view of the learned Sessions Judge is accepted, then the result will be that the accused and the prosecution will have to commence the trial afresh, necessitating more expenditure of time and money and a good deal of unnecessary harassment to the accused.