3 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS 209

be precluded from making the present application on the ground of res judicata. At the highest, a plea ofres judicata may perhaps be raised against the third respondent but that would not be effective in view of the fact that in the present case, an application has been made by the fourth respondent as well.

That is why Mr.

Mehta did not seriously press the point of res judicata before us.

In the result, fails the appeal and is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissw.

KRISHAN LAL DHAWAN AND ANOTHER

DELHI ADMINISTRATION

(J. L. KAPUR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and RAGHUBAR

DAYAL, JJ.)

Criminal Trial-Trial by Special Judge-Another •pecial Judge conducts further proceedings-Conviction-Valid-ity- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 18.98), s. 350-

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952). s. 8, sub's. 3.

The appellants were charged under ss. 120B and 420 Indian Penal Code ands. 5 (I) (d) read withs. 5 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. The trial of the appellants was commenced before a 15pecial Judge who heard the prosecution evidence. 'fhereafter the trial was taken up by another special Judge who examined the defence witnesses. and finally convicted the appellants. The appellants appealed to the High Court and the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. The appellants thereupon appealed to the Supreme

Court by special leave.

The sole question which was raised by the appellants was that in view of the fact the trial commenced before one Special Judge and another Special Judge took up the proceedings are incompetent. . . The respondent relying on s. 8, sub-s. (3), of the Cnmmal Law Amendment

The Fine IL nit tint

Co., Ltd.

The fndustrial Court,

Bombay

Gojentlr•zadk•r J.

196S

Kris/um Lal Dhawan

D1lhi AdminiJtration

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.

Act, 1952, contcncltcl that trial \Vas competent and thr conviction and sentence \\'<re V<did in lav.•.

Held, that s. 350 of the Co:le of Criminal Procerlure is not applicable \\hen one spcr.ial Judge is succeeded hy another. Neither dor~ .<;, 3 (a) of 1he Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1956, make the applicability of s. 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a trial by a special Judge retrospective.

Pai1are T.al "· Sl'lle of Punjab, ( 1962; 3 S. C.R. 328, followed.

CnnrCTAT. APPELLATE , Jumsmcnox: Criminal Appeal !'\os. l!l6 and l!l7 of 60.

Appeal by snecial leave from thll ju<l!!ment and orrlor date<l l\Iwv 12, l!lii8, of the Punjab Higoh Court (Circuit Bnch) at Delhi in Criminal Appeals Nos. 3-D and 1-D of 1958. A.S.R. Chari, :lf. K. Rarnamurthi, R. K. 011rq, n. P. Shl{]h and 8. C. Aqnrwal, for the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 1 !!6/60).

N. S. Uindra, I. M. Lal and A.G. Ratna.pml.hi for the aprwllant (in Cr. A. Ko. I!l7 /fl0).

If. R. Khanna., R. Ji. Dhebar and P. D. Menon, for the respoude11ts.

1962. February 15.

The Judgment of the Court was dcliverPd

0 by

KAPl"H, J.-Thrse two appeals are directed agoainst the judgm<'nt and ordn 1Jf the Punjab High Court confirmin~ the conietion of the appellants under sH.120 B ancl 421l; Indian Penal Cod<>, and s.5(1 )(cl) rPad with s. 5(:2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194-7; and sentmwing each of them to an aggregate Henknce of six mrmth8' rigorous i m prisonmrn t.

It is unnecessarv to set. out the fac:ts in cletnil but to put them briefly. 'J he app"1lant; Albert llfosscs was the Princ:ipal incharge of the Rehabilitation Cc>ntrc, i\falviya Nagar and Kalkaji

3 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS 211

under the Ministry of Rehabilitation. The appel !ant, K. L. Dhawan, was a partner in the firm named M/s. Dhawan & Co. apd they supplied a surface plate for a sum of Rs. 1,950/- to the Works Centre of which the a, ppellant Albert Moses was the Principal.

The trial of the appellants and R. P. Dhawan, who has been acquitted, commenced in the Court of Mr.

Jawala Das, Special Judge, Delhi, and he heard the case from the date of the institution of the proceedings on May 21, 1956 to October 26,

1956. He heard the prosecution evidence which was closed on October 2n, 1956. The case was then ta.ken up by Mr. P. D. Sharma, Special Judge, Delhi, from December 20,

1956. He cx:amined defence witnesses and finally convicted the appellants of the offences already mentioned and acquitted R. P. Dhawan.

Against the conviction and sentence .an appeal was taken to the High Court but the conviction was upheld and also the sentenes and against that judment and order these two appeals by special le1tve have been brought by the two con victed persons. The sole question which has been raised in this Court is th1tt in view of the fact the trial commenced before one Special Judge and another Special Judge took up thf' proceedings after December 20, 1956, the proceedings are :qot competent and, therefore, the conviction ahd the s<Jntence cannot be upheld. Counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court in Payara Lal v. State of Punjab(') in which it was held that "s. 350 is not applicable when one Special Judge is succeeded by another". In that view of the matter Mr. P.D.

Sharma was not Competent to proceed with the trial from the stage at which it was left by Mr .

• Jawala Das.

rI) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 328.

J96Z

Krishan Lal Dhawan

Delhi Adrninistratian

Kapur J.

Kris/um I.at DluJwan

y, D1/lri Admini1lration

Kapur J.

212 SUPRE1\fR COURT REPORTS [Hl62] Rt'PP.

Counsel for the respondent rcliPs on sn hs.(3) of s. 8 of tho Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act 4n of

Hl52) which makes tbe provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far' aR th<:>V are not inconsistont with that Act, a.pp.licable to pro<'ecrlings before a. Special .Judge and a )so provides t.hat a Special .Judge shall be deemed to be a Ccurt of Session when trying a case under the Criminal Law Amendment Act (46 of l!J52).

Ilnt this question was considered in thf' case d1>cidcd hy this Court in P11aralal's wse~') in whi<'h it was held that sub-s.(3) of s. 8 of Act 46 of 1952 did not contemplate thats. 350 of tho Criminal Proeedun• Code becomes npplirable to proceedings hefore a Special Judge.

It was also held in the case that th" amendment made in the Criminal Law Amendmrnt Act

by Act 2 of 1956 by which s. 3(a) was adrled to it making the provisions of s.:{50 of the Code appJi. cable to a trial by Special Judg<•s has Iio retrospective effect. In this view of the matter, tho conviction of the appellants must. therefore be set a.Ride.

The case will be disposed of in accordance with law.

App ra/ ul/curd.

(I) [1%2] 3 ~.C.R. 328 . •