STATE Vs. HARIDAS MUNDHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Rule 1 of Chapter xxxvii (Criminal Side Rules) of the rules of the High Court at Calcutta, original Side, read with clause 25 of the Letters Patent. Sudhamay Basu, J. has reserved the following points of law to be heard and determined by a division Court constituted by three or more Judges : (i) Whether the new Criminal procedure Code (Act 2 of 1974) applies to a case in which the order of committal was passed prior to the 1st april, 1974 but where a trial had not commenced in terms of section 271 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. (ii) If the answer is in the affirmative. would Chapter XVIII of the new code (Act 2 of 1974) apply having regard to the fact that there is no committal under section 209 of the new Code ? (iii) Whether an order of committal passed under the old Code may be deemed to be an order of committal passed under section 209 of Act 2 1974 having regard to section 226 of the new Code. (iv) Is the phrase "commencement of trial" to be construed on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in a sense more extended than what if stated in section 271 of the (old) Criminal Procedure Code of 1898

(2.) THE relevant facts are that on the 3rd October, 1966, a Presidency magistrate of Calcutta committed to the Court of Session at the High Court the case relating to certain shares of messrs. Osier Electric Lamp Manufacturing co. Ltd. An application was made to this Court for amalgamation of this case with another case, namely. State v. Haridas Mundhra, Rameshwar daga and others relating to certain shares of Messrs. Richardson and Cruddas private Ltd. On the 10th December, 1968 Ajay Kumar Basu, J. presiding over the High Court Session rejected the application for amalgamation. The High Court also granted bails to the accused. After the opening of the Session on the 11th February, 1974, the case was adjourned from time to time. The accused persons also at tended the Court. Two petitioners on behalf of the accused persons for their discharge, inter alia, on the ground that the charges were unsustainable were moved and argued before this Court. The orders on these petitions were re served as the question arose whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the trial was pending in this court immediately before the 1st April, 1974, when the new Criminal Procedure code came into force within the meaning of section 484 (2) (a) of the new code. If it be held that the trial was pending, the old Code of 1898 would apply to this case and the trial would proceed in accordance with the provisions of the old Code. If it be held that the new Code would apply, different consequences will follow.

(3.) LET us at the outset read the relevant provisions of section 484 of the new Code on which Learned Counsel appearing for the different parties have based their arguments :