T. Ramabhadran, J. - (1.) THIS purports to be an appeal by one Atraj Singh, who has been found guilty of three offences Under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947), and sentenced to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for each offence; the sentences running concurrently.
(2.) WHEN this appeal came up for hearing on 29 -3 -1967, a question arose whether this appeal was maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 413, Code of Criminal Procedure, which run as under: Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in cases in which a High Court passes a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months only or of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees only, or in which a Court of Session passes a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one month only, or in which a Court of Session or District Magistrate or other Magistrate of the first class passes a sentence of fine not exceeding fifty rupees only. The Learned Counsels for the parties took time to study the point and trace out any previous decision on this point. Today the Learned Counsels have stated that despite best efforts, they have not been able to find any previous decision on the above point.
(3.) MR . P.C. Chaturvedi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, pointed out that Under Section 9 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, the High Court may exercise, so far as they may be applicable, all the powers conferred by Ch. XXXI and XXXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898) on a High Court as if the Court of the Special Judge were a Court of Session trying cases without a jury within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court. It was submitted that from the wording of Section 9 supra, it could not be inferred that Section 413 Code of Criminal Procedure would apply to cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.;