VAIJANATH H SANADI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri G.S. Marathe, learned counsel for the petitioner - Vaijanath H. Sanadi - applies for a certificate under 134(1) of the Constitution.

(2.) The petition arises out of the decision given by this Court dated 21st June, 1969, upholding the sentence of death passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panjim, for the murder of Sidappa Velgathi on the night of 25th October, 1965. The material facts are that the petitioner, after a proper trial, was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code, and was sentenced to death. The other accused - Krishna Hema Chorlekar - was also convicted under S. 201 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years. He was, however, acquitted of the offences charged under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Penal Code. They preferred and appeal to this Court. There was also a reference to this Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of the sentence of death. By his order dated 24th April, 1969, my brother declined to accept the reference-for confirmation of the sentence of death. In the particular view taken by him he altered this sentence to the sentence of imprisonment for life. In the case of the other accused - Krishna Hema Chorlekar the sentence was reduced from 5 years to 2 years. I could not persuade myself to agree with my brother. In agreement with the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, the conviction recorded and the sentence passed by him on the petitioner and the other accused Krishna Hema Chorlekar were maintained by my order dated 7th May, 1969, and this order was sent to my brother for information at Imphal, where he was transferred as Judicial Commissioner, Manipur and Tripura. He ceased to be an Additional Judicial Commissioner with effect from 24th April, 1969. In his supplementary order dated 6th June, 1969, signed at Imphal, while commenting on the order made by me dated 7th May, 1969, he gave additional reasons in support of the sentence of imprisonment for life. There being no third Judge to resolve the difference of opinion the sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the petitioner and Krishna Hema Chorlekar were confirmed in accordance with the proviso to Section 7(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Judicial Commissioner's Court) Regulation, 1963. This decision was communicated to them and their counsel on 21st June, 1969. There is no petition for a certificate on-behalf of Krishna. Hema Chorlekar. The petition is only on behalf of the petitioner. This, in short, is the background of the petition.

(3.) The first ground in support of the certificate applied for under Article 134(1)(c) "is that the proviso to Section 7(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Judicial Commissioner's Court) Regulation, 1963 is bad in law because it is against the basic principles of administration of justice." Section 7(2) and its proviso read as under :-