Summary
The point in controversy in this appeal was whether SS. 207 and 207A inserted into the Code of Criminal Procedure by the amending Act 26 of 1955, violated the provision of Art. 14 of the Constitution and were, therefore, invalid in law.
The appellants were committed for trial to the Court of Session by the inquiring 397Magistrate in a proceeding instituted against them on a Police report and he followed the procedure laid down in s.207A of the Code as required by s. 207 Of the Code. The appellants moved the High Court for quashing the order of commitment on the ground that the provisions of S. 207A introduced discrimination as against accused persons against whom proceedings were' instituted on Police report and were unconstitutional in character. The High Court held against them. The contention was reiterated in this Court and it was sought to be made out that the provisions Of S. 207A of the Code, in comparison and contrast to other provisions of Ch. XVIII of the Code, prescribed a less advantageous procedure for the accused persons in a proceeding started on Police report than the procedure prescribed for other cases in the succeeding sections of the chapter.Held, that ss. 207 and 207A of the Code were not discriminatory and did not contravene Art. 14 of the Constitution and their constitutional validity was beyond question.Although there can be no doubt that the impugned sections introduced substantial difference in the procedure relating to commitment proceedings applicable to the two classes of cases, they did not in any way affect the procedure at the trial, and the true test of the constitutional validity of the classification they made, was whether it was reasonable and pertinent to the object the Legislature had in view, namely, a speedy trial of offences with the least possible delay.So judged there could be no doubt that the Legislature in prescribing the two different procedures at the commitment stage, one for proceedings instituted on Police report and the other for those that were not, had acted on a consideration that was reasonable and connected with the object it had in view.Budhan Choudhry v. The State of Bihar, (1955) S.C.R. 1045, applied.Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari, (1955) 2 S.C.R. 925, Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India, (1950) S.C.R. 869, The State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara, (1951) S.C.R. 682, The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) S.C.R. 284, Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, (1952) S.C.R.435, Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay, (1952) S.C.R. 710, Qasim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad, (1953) S.C.R. 581, Habeeb Mohamad v. The State of Hyderabad, (1953) S.C.R. 661 and The State of Punjab v.Ajaib Singh, (1953) S.C.R. 254, referred to.See the full content of this document
Extract
Macherla Hanumantha Raoand Others VS. The State Of Andhra Pradesh(With Connected Petition)
PETITIONER: MACHERLA HANUMANTHA RAOAND OTHERS Vs.RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH(with connected petition)DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/09/1957BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMAKAPUR, J.L.SARKAR, A.K.CITATION: 1957 AIR 927 1958 SCR 396ACT: Sessions Trial-Commitment Proceeding instituted on Police report-Procedure, if makes for inequality before law-Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) as amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1955 (26 of 1955), ss.207, 207A-Constitution of India, Art. 14.JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1957 and Criminal Misc. Petition No. 294 of 1957.Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 28, 1956, of the former Andhra High Court at Guntur in Criminal Revision Case No. 241 of 1956.398T. V. Sarma, K. Ramaseshayya Chaudhury and T. S.Venkataraman, for the appellants.T. V. R. Tatachari and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India and T. M.Sen, for the Intervener (Union of India).1957. September 17. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered bySINHA J.-The only question that arises for d...
See the full content of this document