They indeed felt distressed by the fact that the accused had already undergone the strain of a protracted and harassing trial for nearly four years but held that such considerations could not weigh with a court so as to restrain it from making an order which the law requires. The appellants, who were the petitioners Advocates in Chandigarh Revision Cases Nos. Having regard to the voluminous evidence on the record, they did not consider it proper to make an order of acquittal in these cases. 1204 and 1205 of 1952, prayed for leave to appeal to this court against this order of the single Judge which was rejected.
This is what this Court held in paragraph 30 of the Report: “It is beyond dispute that we are entitled and indeed bound when construing the terms of any provision found in a statute to consider any other parts of the Act which throw light upon the intention of the legislature and which may serve to shew that the particular provision ought not to be construed as it would be if considered alone and apart from the rest of the Act”. This order was pronounced on the 29th of April, 1952.
7 of the Ordinance prior to its repeal could be validly started even after the repeal. After holding the trial to be bad by reason of the illegalities mentioned above, the learned Judges proceeded to consider what should be the final order passed in the appeals. Whether conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction are the questions Advocates in Chandigarh to be answered in this appeal. On the 21st of November following, summonses Advocates Chandigarh were issued in pursuance of the complaint and within 6 days from that date all the five accused moved the High Court of Calcutta and -rules were issued in their favour calling upon the State Government to show cause why the process issued on the basis of the petition of complaint filed by Kalidas Burman should not be quashed.
sitting singly and the rules were discharged on the 5th of June, 1953. On the 30th of July, 1952, the West Bengal Act XII of 1952 came into force following an ordinance laying down similar provisions which amended in certain respects the provisions of the West Bengal Criminal -Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act of 1949. Some was appointed Special Judge to preside over this Court. It has also come in evidence that quantity of the contraband recovered from the appellant was commercial in nature as prescribed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act.
Referring to the above (9) SCC 277, wherein following was laid down in paragraph 5: It is useful to refer to the judgement of the apex Court in laid down that circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, has no application to a temporary law which automatically expires by efflux of time but the section would apply if the temporary law is repealed before it so expires.
On the 22nd August, 1952, three special courts were constituted by a notification of the Government of West Bengal under section 4(2) of this Act of 1949, one of them being described as the West Bengal Second Special Court; and by a notification dated the 19th of September, 1952, Mr. On the 8th of October, 1952, a notification was issued allotting the case against the 1030 Appellants and their co-accused to this second court for trial and on the 12th of November, 1952, a fresh petition of complaint was filed by one Kalidas Burman, Inspector of Police, Delhi Special Establishment, against the accused under section 120-B, read with section 409 and sections 409 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Punjab Ordinance VII of 1948 was a temporary law and the same having been repealed before it expired by efflux of time a prosecution for an offence committed under s. 14) We find from the record of the case that the prosecution proved with the aid of evidence that the search was made in public place. It has also come in evidence that it was carried out in the presence of gazetted officer and was done after giving an offer to the appellant as required under the NDPS Act. All these rules came up for hearing before Chunder, J.
The prosecution has based its case on circumstantial evidence. The order passed by the High Court was that the accused should be retried in accordance with law by a court of competent jurisdiction, it being left to the State Government to decide whether actually the trial should be proceeded with or not. They subsequently obtained special leave from this court, on the strength of which the case has come before us. Lawyers in Chandigarh This Court on several occasions has considered the law regarding basing of conviction by the Court on a circumstantial evidence.
This Court also referred to the Regulations framed under the SICA and in connection therewith it was held that after the amendment of Regulation 19 with effect from 24th March, 1994 once a reference is registered and it becomes mandatory to simultaneously call for information or documents from the informant and such a direction is given, then an enquiry under Section 16(1) of the SICA must, for the purposes of Section 22 thereof, be deemed to have commenced.