IQBAL SINGH versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) & ORS.

IQBAL SINGH versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) & ORS.

Section 337(2B) Cr.P.C. does not affect the jurisdiction of the Special Judge under s. 8(1) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952; mere difference in opportunity to test approver's evidence does not amount to discrimination under Article 14; no substantial qualitative difference exists between procedures.

Parties
Appellant: Iqbal Singh; Respondents: State (Delhi Administration) & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 November 1977
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From a Delhi High Court Order Refusing to Quash Criminal Proceedings Pending Before Special Judge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Special Judge, Grant of Pardon Under S. 337(1) Cr.p.c., Application of S. 8(1) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, Article 14 Discrimination
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Jurisdiction of Special Judge Grant of Pardon Under S. 337(1) Cr.p.c. Application of S. 8(1) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 Article 14 Discrimination

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 1 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iqbal Singh

Appellant

State (Delhi Administration) & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From a Delhi High Court Order Refusing to Quash Criminal Proceedings Pending Before Special Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether grant of pardon by Magistrate under section 337(1) Cr.P.C. limits Special Judge's jurisdiction under s. 8(1) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952
  2. 2 Whether post-pardon application of s. 8(1) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Section 337(2B) Cr.P.C. does not affect the jurisdiction of the Special Judge under s. 8(1) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952; mere difference in opportunity to test approver's evidence does not amount to discrimination under Article 14; no substantial qualitative difference exists between procedures.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings against appellant not quashed
  • Special Judge's jurisdiction affirmed