A.R. ANTULAY v. R.S. NAYAK AND ANR.

A.R ANTULAY v. R.S. NAYAK AND ANR.
INTRODUCTION---
In the case of A.R ANTULAY V. R.S. NAYAK AND
ANR. judgment the court stated that corruption cases that are triable by a special judge,
cannot be transferred to a High Court judge for a hearing. After the judgment of this case,
many legal authority or institution pointed out that the legal system of India is restricted by
the limitations of human foresight. In the famous Sahara’s case, the court stated this case to
be of irrelevant precedent and the judgment must be cited as a precedent, only when confined
to the facts and circumstances of the cases.
FACT of the case--

In this case the respondent (A.R ANTULAY), who was the chief
minister of maharastra since 1980. After some time of his tenure in 1981 complainant R.S
Nayak, a Bhartiya Janata party member under the section 197 of the criminal procedure
code,1973, and section 6 of the prevention of corruption act,1947 approaches the governor
and requesting him for approval to bring a suit against the respondent. After that he also
lodge a complaint to the additional magistrate, Bombay against the respondent for the
offences under section 161, 165, 384 and 420 and these section read with section 109 and
section 120(B) of the Indian penal code, 1860 and section 5 of the prevention of the
corruption act,1947.
It was alleged in the complaint that the respondent, as the chief minister of the state of
maharastra done many corruption and alleged that he created 7 trusts, one of them is Indira
Gandhi pratishthan shown to be a government trust and that he extended favour to those who
made donation to the said trusts. Allegation is that, all trust except the Indira Gandhi
prastisthan he, his wife, close relatives, and friends were associate as trustee.
Issues-:
1. Direction given by the court in February 1984, whether breach section 7(1) of the act
of 1952?
2. Whether this decision is violative of article 14 and 21 of the constitution or not?
Arguments of the appellant-
1. Since the appellant was treated differently without having the chance to present any
claims or defences in court, it was claimed that his fundamental right under Article 14
of the constitution had been violated.
2. The appellant was also claimed to be entitled to a special judge-led trial under
Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952, which is a Fundamental
Right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. The essential tenets of justice administration, it was argued, prohibit anyone from
suffering injustice as a result of a court decision or a procedural mistake. It was also
asserted that the appellant had forfeited two crucial rights, namely the right to review.
4. The power to petition the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and
the right to appeal to the High Court under Section 9 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act were further claimed to have been waived by the appellant.
Arguments of the respodent-

1. According to the argument, the High Court could, in accordance with Section 407 of
the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, withdraw the
case from the Special Judge given the appropriate circumstances.
2. It was argued that it was improper for the case to be transferred without giving the
appellant a chance to give his justifications or legal arguments. The appellant had the
option of filing his charges through counsel before the judgement was signed or after
the instructions were given. As a result, it is not improper or unlawful, and the
appellant is to blame for missing the opportunity.
3. The superior court was asserted to have the power to determine whether or not it had
jurisdiction. The superior court cannot be held responsible for the accusations if it
doesn't follow the law.
Important provisions-
1. A violation of Indian Penal Code Sections 161 and 165, the Prevention of Corruption
Act, which prohibits public employees from accepting compensation above what the
government offers or from obtaining anything of value without payment, is a
cognizable, non-bailable offence.
2. According to Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, the
Constitution of India's Articles 13, 14, 21, and 31 violate the fundamental right to
receive equal treatment in a court of law and the right to a trial by a special judge.
3. 1952's Criminal Law (Amendment) Act Sections 6 and 7 grant the State Government
the authority to appoint as many Special Judges as necessary and grant the Special
Judge the authority to try cases involving any of the offences listed in Section 6's
subsection.
4. Criminal Procedure Code Section 374,406,407: Any individual convicted following a
trial has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court and High
Court have the authority to transfer the case in specific situations.
JUDGEMANT -
A seven-judge Supreme Court bench rendered the ruling in this case.
The verdict was rendered in favour of the appellant by a 4:3 margin. The court ruled that
Section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the transfer of criminal cases and
the Supreme Court's authority to transfer cases and appeals. According to the law, the court
may transfer any specific case or appeal from one High court to another High court, from a
lower-level criminal court to a High court, or from a lower-level criminal court to one High
court to another criminal court with equal or higher-level jurisdiction to another High court.
Similar to this, Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code addresses the High court's ability
to transfer cases.
The State Government may appoint as many Special Judges as are required for a given area
for a certain offence under Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952. The
emphasis on trials by Special Judges is emphasised in Section 7 of the Criminal Law
(Amendment)Act, 1952. The question at hand is the legality of the transfer that the court
made. A need for the prosecution of criminals under Section 6(1) of the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 1952 is set forth in Section 7(1) of same law. The Indian Penal Code and
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 are thus used to prosecute the offences under Section
6(1) of the Act. As a result, it was illegal for the court to transmit cases to the high court. The
supreme court through its direction cannot advise high court to take case which are not in its
jurisdiction.
Directly speaking, it is impossible for the Supreme Court to transfer cases to itself. No other
Court, superior or lower, has the legal authority to establish new jurisdictions or expand
existing ones. The appellant in this instance has received different treatment from other
criminals. The rights of the appellant to not be divided and to use the special court for his
purposes are both protected by Article 14 of the Constitution, which is titled "Right to
Equality." In addition, the appellant has the right under Article 21 of the Constitution to be
tried by a Special Judge in accordance with Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act, 1952, which is a legal requirement, and the appellant has the right not to suffer as a
result of any order made by the Court that violates natural justice. A right to appeal is granted
by Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code
One special judge is designated to hear a certain provision of a particular regulation alone,
and such cases may be transferred from one special judge to another. Section 6 of the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1952 prohibits the High Court from transferring such
matters. Due to the court's instructions, it is therefore abundantly evident that Section 7(2) of
the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1952 as well as Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
have been broken, making them illegal.
CONCLUSION—
Any person who has had their rights violated has the right to seek
redress. The common man in the nation should not be impacted by any decision or error
made by the court. Everyone should be treated equally before the law because everyone is
equal before the law. Any judgement rendered by the court must be favourable. It must make
sure that neither party will be prejudiced as a result of the court's actions or inactions. Justice
is superior to finality, as the Supreme Court also emphasised. Justice should always be served
before making a judgement.

A.R. ANTULAY v. R.S. NAYAK AND ANR.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.R. ANTULAY v. R.S. NAYAK AND ANR.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.R. ANTULAY v. R.S. NAYAK AND ANR.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.R ANTULAY v. R.S. NAYAK AND ANR.

FACT of the case--

Arguments of the appellant-

Arguments of the respodent-

You might also like