SHEO PRASAD JETHIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Revision No. 24 of 1974 arises on an application under S. 439 and 561a of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed against an order dated 16. 11. 73 passed by Shri P. L. Chatterji, Judge, 4th additional Special Court, Calcutta in special Court Case No. 11 of 1971 rejecting the petitioner's prayer for discharge. Criminal Revision No. 320 of 1974 arises on an application under S. 439 read with S. 561a of the Code and is directed against an order dated 18th february, 1974 passed by Shri P. L. Chatterji, Judge, 4th Additional Special Court, Calcutta in Special court Case No. 16 of 1971 framing a charge under S. 120b and also under s. 420 I. P. C. against the petitioner. Criminal Revision No. 189 of 1975 arises on an application under S. 397, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, alternatively under s. 435, 439 and 569 A of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1898 and is for quashing the proceeding being Special case No. 1 of 1974 before Shri K. C, roy, Judge, 4th Additional Special court, Calcutta. At the time of issuance of these rules N. C. Talukdar and A. N. Banerji, JJ. , passed the following order :-

(2.) MR, Nalin Chandra Banerji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contends that in view of Article 228a of the Constitution of India, this Division Bench is not competent to determine the question of Constitutional validity of a State law. This court can refer the matter to the learned Chief Justice for constituting a bench of five Judges who can only determine the question as to the constitutional validity of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the West Bengal criminal Law Amendment (Special courts) Act, 1949. Mr. Ramendra nath Bose, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Advocate General, on the other hand, contends that a single judge or a Division Bench of two judges can very well say whether in a particular case, a question of Constitutional validity of a State Law is involved and if a single Judge or a Division bench of two Judges is of opinion that no such question is involved, then the question of referring the matter for determination by a Bench of five Judges does not arise. Mr. Banerji in support of his contention that a single judge or a Division Bench of two judges cannot go into the question of validity of a State Law relies very much on a decision reported in AIR 1977 Allahabad 270 (Chandra Kanta devi -v- State of U. P. This is a Full bench decision. In this case, their lordships have laid down