KANTA PRASHAD versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

KANTA PRASHAD versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

The District Magistrate was empowered to tender a pardon under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences triable exclusively by a Court of Special Judge, because such Judge is deemed a Court of Session by the relevant statutes; procedural irregularities in charge framing and absence of test identification parade did not invalidate the proceedings or conviction.

Parties
Appellant: Kanta Prashad; Respondent: Delhi Administration
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 February 1958
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Grant of Pardon, Concurrent Jurisdiction, Special Judge, Court of Session, Prevention of Corruption Act, Code of Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Grant of Pardon Concurrent Jurisdiction Special Judge Court of Session Prevention of Corruption Act Code of Criminal Procedure

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kanta Prashad

Appellant

Delhi Administration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Magistrate had authority to tender pardon under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases triable exclusively by the Court of Special Judge
  2. 2 Whether failure to hold test identification parade rendered evidence inadmissible
  3. 3 Whether the lack of separate charges contravened s. 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The District Magistrate was empowered to tender a pardon under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences triable exclusively by a Court of Special Judge, because such Judge is deemed a Court of Session by the relevant statutes; procedural irregularities in charge framing and absence of test identification parade did not invalidate the proceedings or conviction.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence under s. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, affirmed