Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 347 and 348 of 1975 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 37 and 38 of 1975, Misc. Appl. No. 475 of 1975 in Cr. A. No. 26 of 1975, Misc. Appl. No. 70 of 1975 in Cr. A. No. 4 of 1975, decided on 13th May 1975.

‑‑ S. 7‑Construction‑Provision of S. 7 has not taken away powers of Division Bench of High Court to grant bail to appellant in appro priate case‑Even if power of Division Bench under 5. 426, Cr. P. C. be considered to have been curtailed by S. 7, the Division Bench as appellate authority automatically has power, in fit case, to grant interlocutory relief‑History of legislation on subject traced‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 426.

Where the contention was that section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, has expressly taken away High Court's power to suspend sentence or release the appellants on bail pending appeal. the High Court traced the history of legislation on the subject and held: Subsection (1) of section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, falls into two parts : The first part deals with the right of appeal to the High Court, whilst the second part specifies the powers which no Court can exercise with regard to any proceedings of a Special Court.

In arguments reliance was placed on the fact that the power of an appellate Court to grant bail during the pendency of an appeal was limited under the Code to section 426 ; therefore, as the second part of subsection (1) had expressly taken away all powers under section 426, the Division Bench did not have any power to release the appellants on bail pending the hearing of the appeal before it.

The submission of the State Counsel was that the High Court could not construe section 7 in a manner which would render redundant the references to sections 426 and 498 of the Code. The difficulty is that the section is so obscurely worded that some part or the other is redundant. The Court pointed out that section 7(1) is divided into two parts, separated by the words "but save as aforesaid and". Nothing turns on the first and the last of these words, which would have been sufficient to divide the section into two parts, if that bad been the intention of the Legislature, as submitted by the counsel for the State. However, the Legislature has also inserted the words save as aforesaid", and these words have been inserted not merely to separate the two pars of the subsection, but to make