NAYYAR (G. P.) versus STATE (DELHI ADMN.)

NAYYAR (G. P.) versus STATE (DELHI ADMN.)

The retrospective revival of section 5(3) does not violate Article 20(1) as it is a rule of evidence, not a new offence or enhancement of penalty; procedural revival applicable to pending proceedings is permitted under law and does not infringe constitutional rights.

Parties
Appellant: G.P. Nayyar; Respondent: State (Delhi Administration)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 December 1978
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi, Remanding the Case for Retrial; Decision of the Supreme Court on Validity of Retrospective Application of Statutory Provision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Retrospective Application of Statutes, Validity of Ex Post Facto Laws, Prevention of Corruption, Interpretation of Statutes
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Retrospective Application of Statutes Validity of Ex Post Facto Laws Prevention of Corruption Interpretation of Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G.P. Nayyar

Appellant

State (Delhi Administration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi, Remanding the Case for Retrial; Decision of the Supreme Court on Validity of Retrospective Application of Statutory Provision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the retrospective revival of section 5(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by Act No. 16 of 1967 violates Articles 14 and 20(1) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether section 5(3) creates a new offence or prescribes a rule of evidence
  3. 3 Effect of repeal and revival of procedural provisions in pending criminal matters

Ratio Decidendi

The retrospective revival of section 5(3) does not violate Article 20(1) as it is a rule of evidence, not a new offence or enhancement of penalty; procedural revival applicable to pending proceedings is permitted under law and does not infringe constitutional rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed.