CDJ 1954 SC 014

Court : Supreme Court of India

Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1953

Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.C. MAHAJAN, THE HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE S.R. DAS, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. MUKHERJEA, THE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIVIAN BOSE, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.H.
BHAGWATI, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. JAGANNADHADAS & THE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR

Parties : Budhan Choudhry & Others Versus State of Bihar

Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: M/s. B.K. Saran, M.M. Sinha, Advocates. For the
Respondent: M.C. Setalvad, Attorney -General for India, R.C. Prasad, Advocates.

Date of Judgment : 02-12-1954

Head Note :-

Constitution of India - Article 14 -

Criminal Procedure Code (5 of 1898) - Section 28, Section 30 -

Cases Referred :
(V38) AIR 1951 SC 41 :1950-1 SCR 869 (SC)
(V38) AIR 1951 SC 318 :1951-2 SCR 682: 1952CriLJ1361
(V39) AIR 1952 SC 75 :1952-3 SCR 284: 1952 Cri LJ 510
(V39) AIR 1952 SC 123 :1952-3 SCR 435: 1952 Cri LJ 805
(V39) AIR 1952 SC 235 :1952-3 SCR 710: 1952 Cri LJ 1167
(V40) AIR 1953 SC 156 :1953-4 SCR 539: 1953 Cri LJ 862
(V40) AIR 1953 SC 287 :1953-4 SCR 661: 1953 Cri LJ 1158
(V40) AIR 1953 SC 10 :1953-4 SCR 254: 1953 Cri LJ 180
(1885) 118 US 356:30 Law Ed 220
(1943) 321 US 1:88 Law Ed 497

Comparative Citations:
1955 AIR(SC) 191, 1955 CrLJ 371, 1955 SCJ 163, 1955 (1) SCR 1045, 1955 ALJ 309,
Judgment :-
that he gets the benefit of the commitment proceedings before a Magistrate and then a trial
before the Sessions Judge with the aid of the jury or assessors. It has not been seriously
questioned before us that in spite of the risk of imposition of a punishment heavier than what a
section 30 Magistrate can inflict, a trial by a Sessions Judge is of greater advantage to the
accused than a trial before a Magistrate under the warrant procedure. We have, therefore, to
see whether this apparent discrimination offends against the equal protection clause of our
Constitution.

The provisions of article 14 of the Constitution have come up for discussion before this Court in
a number of cases., namely, Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India([1950] S.C.R. 869),
The State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara([1951] S.C.R. 682), The State of West Bengal v. Anwar
Ali Sarkar([1952] S.c. R. 284), Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Sau-rashtra([1952] S.C.R.
435), Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay([1952] S-C R. 710) and Qasim
Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad([1953] S.C.R. 581) and Habeeb Mohamad v. The State of
Hyderabad([1953] S.C.R. 661). It is, therefore, not necessary to enter upon any lengthy
discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of the article in question. It is now well-
established that while article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable
classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible
classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded
on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped togetber
from others left out of the group and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on
different bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What
is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of
the Act under consideration. It is also well established by the decisions of this Court that article
14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure. The
contention now put forward as to the invalidity of the trial of the appellants has, therefore to be
tested in the light of the principles so laid down in the decisions of this Court.

There are no less than four modes of trial prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure,
namely, (i) trial of sessions cases, (ii) trial of warrant cases, (iii)summary trials and (iv) trials
before a High Court and a Court of Session and the procedure in each of these trials is
different. Section 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is to be found in Chapter III
which deals with "Powers of Courts" reads as follows:- "28. Subject to the other provisions of
this Code, any offence under the Indian Penal Code may be tried-(a) by the High Court, or (b)
by the Court of Session, or (c) by any other Court by which such offence is shown in the eighth
column of the second schedule to be triable".