T.L. Venkatarama Aiyyar JUDGMENT
Sudhi Ranjan Das, J.
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna which raises a substantial question of low as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India.
2. The appeal arises out of a criminal trial held in the district of Hazaribagh in the State of Bihar. The case against the appellants was investigated by the local police and on the 4th June, 1951 a challan was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the following order in the order-sheet :-
"Let the record be sent to the Dy. Commr., Hazaribagh for transferring it to the file of the Spl. Magistrate for trial."
3. On the record being placed before the Deputy Commissioner, the latter passed following order :-
"Perused S.D.O's order-sheet. Withdrawn and transferred to the file of Mr. S. F. Azam, Magte. with powers u/s. 30, Cr.P.C. for favour of disposal".
4. The appellants were then tried by Mr. S.F. Azam, Magistrate of the first class exercising powers under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on charges under sections 366 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was convicted under both the sections and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years under section 366, Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence having been passed under section 143.
5. The appellants preferred an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The appeal was heard by a Bench consisting of S. K. Das and C. P. Sinha, JJ. There was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges as to the constitutionality of section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. S. K. Das, J., took the view that the impugned section did not bring about any discrimination or inequality between persons similarly circumstanced and consequently did not offend the equal protection clause of the Constitution, while C. P. Sinha, J., was of the opinion that the section was hit by article 14. The appeal was thereupon placed before Reuben, C.J., who in agreement with S. K. Das, J., held that section 30 did not violate the inhibition of article 14. The learned Chief Justice upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence. On application by the appellants the High Court granted them a certificate under article 132(1) and the present appeal has been fi........