PURAN MAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by my learned brother Soni J. by his order dated 13-10-1952, and the point for determination is whether amendment of Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947) which was made by Section 4, Prevention of Corruption (Second Amendment) Act, 1952, and enacted on 12-8-1952, has retrospective effect.

(2.) THE offence which the petitioner is alleged to have committed consisted in the fact that he embezzled Rs. 247/11/3 which he had drawn for an electricity bill dated 2-6-1950, and which was shown in the cash book on 8-9-1950, as having been paid but was in fact not paid by him. The case was instituted in the Court on 19-7-1951. Before this a judgment of this Court which is reported as -- 'state v Gur-charan Singh', AIR 1952 Punj 89 (A) held that Section 5 (1) (c), prevention of Corruption Act, (Act 2 of 1947) had 'pro tanto' repealed Section 409, I. P. C. , in regard to public servants. This judgment was given on 5-12-1950, and had been published in the punjab Law Reporter some time before the institution of the proceedings against the petitioner. 2a. By the Second Amendment Act 59 of 1952 which was made in the Prevention of Corruption act the following amendment was made by Section 4 of the Act of 1952-

(3.) QUITE recently in--'rex v. Oliver', (1944) 1 KB 68 (C) the Court of Appeal had to interpret a regulation which was in the following words-