G.G.A. NAIDU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above criminal application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment, dated April 16, 1975, passed by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, in case No. 6 of 1974, in which the petitioner is prosecuted for an offence under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, on the allegation that while the petitioner was functioning as Income -tax Officer in the office of the Commissioner of Income -tax at Bombay and Nagpur, during the period between February 1, 1958 and November 27, 1971, he was found to be in possession of pecuniary resources or properties both in his name and in the name of his dependent wife and his dependent children, like bank balances, fixed deposits, National Savings Certificates, National Defence Certificates, plots of land, costly household articles, jewellery and motor car, worth Rs. 4,00,687.32, while his known income was Rs. 2,89,986 and his known expenditure was Rs. 1,53,181, and the probable savings amounted to only Rs. 1,36,805 as on February 1, 1958.

(2.) IT is surprising that notwithstanding the absence of any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for entertaining a preliminary objection to the sanction for prosecution, the learned Special Judge allowed a preliminary objection to be raised in this case and wrote a lengthy interlocutory judgment ignoring the provisions of Section 309 of the new Criminal Procedure Code. Under Sub -section (1) of that section, in every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. Sub -section (2) lays down: If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custoday. In Sub -section (1), the words to be emphasized are 'shall be continued from day to day' and the words 'to be necessary for reasons to be recorded'. In Sub -section (2), the words which should not be forgotten are 'finds it necessary or advisable to postpone'.

(3.) IT was found in numerous cases, and particularly cases like cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, that all sorts of so -called preliminary objections of a technical nature were raised and trials were postponed sometimes: indefinitely, and this often led to miscarriage of justice or softness in the administration of criminal law, which in all civilized countries, is required to be administered swiftly, efficiently and fairly, if it is really to operate as criminal law. The facility which was available under the old Criminal Procedure Code of having a wrong or unjust interlocutory order struck down in revision was so extensively abused that it had become a major factor in delaying disposal of cases not only for months but for years, during which some of the witnesses died or lost interest in the case and sometimes even the prosecution let its keenness and the accused also died and put an end to the criminal prosecution thereby. The Parliament has enacted the exclusion of interlocutory orders from the scope of revision with the hope that the subordinate Courts, after the separation of the judiciary, would be manned by judicial officers who may be expected to act strictly according to law.