STATE Vs. C P SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question arising in these cases involves the true interpretation of the provisions regarding the procedure embodied in the Criminal Law Amendment Act (46 of 1952), the question being whether two of the accused concerned in these cases, against one of whom there is a charge under Section 161 and against the other under Section 161 read with Section 109, Penal Code, should be tried by the Court of Session or by a Special Judge appointed under Section 7 of that Act.

(2.) THE relevant facts are shortly these. During the last world war, in the year 1944, at the instance of the Government, certain accounts, known as the Defence Savings Bank (Cane) Accounts, were opened in different post offices. A sum of two annas was deducted from the price of each maund of sugar-cane supplied by the growers of sugar-cane to different mills. THEse deductions used to be made by the mills themselves, and the mill authorities, after taking the thumb mark or the signature of the cane grower, used to send the amount so deducted to the nearest post office to be deposited in the accounts opened in the names of the cane growers, and Savings Bank Pass books were issued in the names of these cane growers individually who were called the depositors. Government had given assurance to them that the money so kept in deposit would be refunded to them with interest after the termination of the War. In 1947 Government passed orders for the refund of these amounts together with interest to the depositors, and prescribed a procedure for the purpose.

(3.) THE point for decision, therefore, is whether the learned Magistrate in committing the accused to the Court of Session to take their trial there by his order dated 12-8-1952, acted illegally.