STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SANTO KUMAR MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order of the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur in a miscellaneous case in which the question arose whether Ordinance No. XXXVIII (38) of 1944 was still in force. The facts are within a short compass, and they are as follows:

(2.) On 1-9-1949, a first information had been lodged with the police in which the allegation was that there had been a defalcation of about 15 lacs of Government money. This information was lodged against the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 before us, namely, Santo Kumar Mitra, Sudhir Kumar Bose and Anthony Kujur. Santo Kumar Mitra was the Head-clerk and Accountant of the Vaccine Institute, Namkum, and the other two respondents were his Assistants working under him in that institute. On 12-9-1949, the Province of Bihar filed a petition under Section 3 of Ordinance No. XXXVIII (38) of 1944 which is called by the name of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance in which it was stated that these respondents had withdrawn a sum of over Rupees 15 Lacs from the Ranchi Treasury and were guilty of offences under Sections 406, 409, 417, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code with regard to the said Government money, these offences bring scheduled offences under Ordinance No. XXXVIII (38) of 1944, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Ordinance. The petition of the Government was supported by the necessary affidavits and the prayer in this petition was for the attachment of the money and the other properties of the opposite parties (the three respondents mentioned above) which the Government believe had been procured by them by the commission of the above-mentioned offences. In accordance with the prayer made by the Government an order for 'ad interim' attachment of the properties and the money mentioned in the schedule attached to the application was passed and notices were issued to the persons who were likely to claim those properties. As appears from the judgment of the learned Judicial Commissioner several claim cases were filed, and they are still awaiting decision. The most important point that was raised before the learned Judicial Commissioner was that the Ordinance had lapsed and was no more in existence, and this contention has found favour with the learned Judicial Commissioner. Though it was argued before him that the Ordinance had come to an end on the 1st of April 1946 or on the 30th September 1946, this contention was repelled by him. But he was of opinion that from the 15th of August 1947 when the Indian Independence Act came into force this Ordinance ceased to have any effect. In the result, therefore, Me vacated the order of 'ad interim' attachment which had been passed by him.

(3.) The State of Bihar have therefore appealed against the order of the learned Judicial Commissioner, and the learned Government Pleader who has appeared on behalf of the State before us has urged that the view taken by the learned Judicial Commissioner is absolutely erroneous and that he was not justified in vacating the order of 'ad interim' attachment.