Hidayatullah, J. - (1.) The appellant, Om Prakash, was tried on two charges respectively under S. 165-A and S. 468/109 I. P. C., before the Special Judge, Bulandshahar empowered under S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was convicted under S. 165-A, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. He was acquitted of the second charge. He appealed to the High Court of Allahabad against his sentence, and contended, inter alia, that his conviction under S. 165-A, I. P. C. was against the provisions of Art. 20 of the Constitution, because the offence was alleged to have been committed by him on December 4, 1948, whereas the said offence was first created on July 28, 1952, when S. 165-A was first enacted and introduced in the Indian Penal Code by S. 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. 46 of 1952). This contention was accepted by the High Court, and the conviction was changed to one under S. 161 read with S. 109, I. P. C., but the sentence was maintained. The appellant applied for a certificate of fitness under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution, and the High Court having refused it, he was granted special leave by this Court.
(2.) The two charges on which he was tried, disclose the facts sufficiently for the purpose of this appeal, and may be quoted here: "Firstly -hat you paid Rs. 300 on or about 4th December, 1948, to Roshan Lal Gupta, unit clerk in M. I.'s office Bulandshahar to issue to you fictitious permits for bricks and which were issued to you, to wit permits Nos. 19, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Indent Book No. 59, which were later on detected and order was issued for not crediting them and they were cancelled and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 165-A of the I. P. C., and within my cognizance as Special Judge. Secondly -hat you abetted the forging of permits Nos. 19, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Indent Book No. 29 by Roshan Lal in fictitious names and you took them from Roshan Lal intending that these permits shall be used for cheating the department and the cultivators in general and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 468/109 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance as a Special Judge, and I thereby direct you be tried be this Court on the said charges."
(3.) In this appeal, the appellant has urged only two points. The first is that the High Court acted without jurisdiction in altering the conviction to one under S. 161/109, I. P. C., or, at any rate, acted illegally in doing so; and the other is that the High Court was in error in relying upon Exs. P-3 and P-4 (two statements made by him) as confessions of the offence with which he was charged, in the absence of any other or even corroborating evidence to bring home the accusation.;