K SATWANT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Letters Patent appeals are from one judgment dated 19-6-1950 of Khosla J. The two appeals have been filed because the judgment dealt with two matters which arose differently, one on appeal from the order of the Dist. J. Ambala, and the other on application for mandamus. Both the appeal and the application for writ were rejected by Khosla J.

(2.) THE applicant is a person against whom several causes were filed in respect of what are commonly known as the the Burma frauds and he has been tried before the Tribunal or Tribunals constituted under various Acts and Ordinances. The applicant has been convicted in five cases. Prior to partition an amount of Rs. 4,98,000 in the possession of the applicant was attached under section3 of Ordinance No. XXXVIII 38. of 1944. This money is said to have been kept in a box along with certain other monies attached in the Treasury at Lahore, and after partition this box has remained at Lahore. The applicant for purposes of conducting his defence made an application to the Dist. J. Ambala, under 9. 9 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance No. XXXVIII 38. of 1944. This section gives to the Dist. J, in this case the Dist. J. Ambala, jurisdiction to provide from the property attached under Section 3 of the same Ordinance such sums as may be reasonably necessary not only for the maintenance of the applicant and his family but also for expenses connected with the defence of the applicant where criminal proceedings have been instituted against him in any Court for a scheduled offence. Had there been any money attached under Section 3 of the Ordinance at the disposal of the Dist. J. Ambala, the Dist. J. undoubtedly would have bad to consider the making of an order under Section 9. As however, the only money attached from the applicant under Section 3 was in the box at Lahore the learned Dist. J. considered that no effective order could be made by him and be passed the following orders: this application may be put before me when any money belonging to K. Satwant Singh has been transferred to India from Pakistan.

(3.) IT seems to me that Khosla J. was perfectly correct in dismissing the appeal from this order. It is suggested that the Dist, J. in any case should have fixed the amount which he considered the applicant should be granted for maintenance and for the legal expenses. But I do not think it can be urged seriously that the Dist. J. was wrong when he preferred to consider such an order at the time when money would be available rather than at present when no money at all is available.