PEELA POTHI NALDU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking declaration that the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 is inoperative as having lapsed on 26-1-1950 and consequently, no proceedings thereunder can be initiated or continued and also to declare the impugned G.O.Rt.Nos. 1137, dated 12-5-1997 and 1314, dated 6-6-1997 and 1721, dated 4-7-1997 as illegal, contrary to law, non est in the eye of law and also violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside all further proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh in pursuance of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Ordinance'.

(2.) The petitioner is an Advocate practising at Visakhapatnam. He conducted land acquisition cases and in one such case, enhancement was granted, but the same was appealed against before the High Court and lastly in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had granted a conditional stay, but the said condition was not complied with. The Government, then deposited an amount of Rs. 94,14,030.00 towards the satisfaction of the decree, out of which Rs. 90,90,841.00 was paid. The Collector, Visakhapatnam, made a complaint to the Registrar of the High Court on 19-7-1996 making allegations against the petitioner as also the Subordinate Judge of Anakapalli and some others stating that amounts were unduly paid. District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam also inquired into the matter and ultimately G.O.Ms.Nos. 236, dated 31-1-1997, 1137 dated 12-5-1997, 1314 dated 6-6-1997 and 1721 dated 4-7-1997 were issued and crimes against the petitioner and others including the then Subordinate Judge, Anakapalli of Visakhapatnam District were registered vide Crime Nos. 327 of 1996, 6, 7 and 10 of 1997. The Government also appointed the Criminal Investigation Department of Andhra Pradesh under the supervision of Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (Sarkars), Visakhapatnam, who was authorised to file petition/s under the said G.Os. issued under the impugned Ordinance. On such petitions being filed, the District Judge, Visakhapatnam passed an interim order attaching the properties belonging to the petitioner herein.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the impugned Ordinance is violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the impugned Ordinance expired on expiry of Emergency on 1-4-1946. The premise is that the impugned Ordinance was not the existing law within the meaning of Clause (10) of Article 366 of the Constitution nor was it 'law in force' within the meaning of Article 372 to continue in force at all. According to the petitioner, when the Constitution came into force on 26-1-1950, the impugned Ordinance was dead law' and no life could be infused in an extinct law; as such, all proceedings taken against him under the impugned Ordinance are without jurisdiction, void and non est. The petitioner further contends that as the impugned Ordinance was promulgated under the Government of India Act, 1935, and as the said Act itself was repealed by the Articles 389 and 395 of the Constitution and as such, any Ordinance tracing its origin from the Government of India Act, 1935 has no force of law.