STATE Vs. NARAYAN NANDRAM SARPANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sessions Judge of Indore has made a reference to the High Court in this case and also in 15 other cases; the points involved in all these cases are questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India. The questions being Identical, all the references are being disposed of by this single order.

(2.) THE facts, leading to the reference, briefly stated are that the Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act No, XLVI of 1952) received the assent of the President on 28-7-1952. tinder Section 7 of the Act, the learned Sessions Judge of Indore was appointed a Special Judge on 810-1952 by the Madhya Bharat Government. All cases triable by the Special Judge, that were pending before other Courts, were transferred to the Special Judge under Section 10 of the Act for disposal. During the hearing of these transferred cases, the counsel of the accused raised some objections relating to the validity of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952, and, hence this reference. The objections may be summarised thus: That the transferred cases are concerning offences alleged to have been committed before the coming into force of the Criminal Law Amendment Act; that the trial of such cases under the Act will amount to law being retrospectively applied to them; that Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947) offends against Article 14 of the Constitution and that Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act is ultra vires of Article 20 of the Constitution.

(3.) BEFORE considering the objections, we must first consider whether any reference lies or not. The learned Special Judge in his covering letter No. 9963/a of 22-71953 says that the reference is being made under Section 432, Criminal P. C. There is no doubt that under the Section a reference lies to the High Court, but the circumstances that justify a reference under the section are not there. Section 432, Criminal P. C. runs thus: