LexLords NRI Legal Services Delhi By NRI Legal Services LexLords

NRI legal services https://lexlords.com/company-incorporation-and-llp/. It is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of an individual "case", as distinct from a "class of cases", as a class by itself within the rule of permissi- ble and legitimate classification. A man could as easily withdraw from the business assets which had depreciated and enter in his books the depreciated market value and leave at cost price the assets which had risen. This 'means that this part of the sub-section empowers the State Govern- ment to pick out or select particular cases against particu- NRI legal services (top article) lar persons for being sent up to the Special Court for trial.

An individual case of a crime committed with gruesome atrocity or committed NRI legal services (top article) upon an eminent person may shock our moral sense to a greater extent but, on ultimate analysis and in the absence of special circumstances such as I have mentioned, it is not basically different from another individual case of a simi- lar crime although committed with less vehemence or on a less eminent person. delivered separate judgments agreeing with the conclusion of the Chief Justice, Das Gupta J,, however, going further and holding that section 5 (1) was unconstitutional in its entirety inasmuch as "the clas- sification sought to be made on the expediency of speedier trial is not a well-defined classification.

It is too indef- inite and there can hardly be any definite objective test to determine it. Further, as I have already explained, the object of the Act cannot, by itself, be the basis of the selection which, I repeat, must be based on some differentia distinguishing the ' 'case" from other ' 'cases" and having a relation to the 45 346 object of the Act. Had the assets been left where they were, they would have been valued at the end of the year as they were at the beginning, at the cost price and we would still be where we are now.

345 In the present case, however, the State government has not purported to proceed under that part of section 5(1) which I have been discussing so far. There is ostensibly no attempt at, or pretence of, any classifica- tion on any basis whatever. The notifications simply direct certain "cases" to be tried by the Special Court and are obviously issued under that part of section 5(1) which authorises the State government to direct "cases" to be tried by the Special Court.

In other words, this part of section 5 (1) lies beyond the ambit of the object laid down in the preamble and, therefore, the preamble can have no manner of application in the selection of "cases" as distinct from "offences", "classes of offences" or "classes of cases". I agree with Harries C. The idea of classification is, therefore, excluded. Turning to the pream- ble, I find that the object of the Act is "to provide for the speedier trial of certain offences" and not of a partic- ular case or cases.

Chakravartti and Das JJ. 209 226 indefinite date is mere guess work for equally there might be loss. In the absence of special circumstances of the kind I have described above, one individual case, say of murder, cannot require speedier trial any more than another individual case of murder may do. It (1) [1950] INSC 16; [1950] S C. ]his power must inevitably result in discrimination and this discrimination is, in terms incorpo- rated in this part of the section itself and, therefore, this part of the section itself must incur our condemnation.

This argument can only prevail on the assumption that the State can tax potential profits because, except for that, the State would neither gain nor lose in a case of this kind. Here the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offence. that the preamble cannot control this part of the sub-section where the language is plain and unambiguous. It is urged by the learned AttorneyGeneral that this selection of cases must also be made in the light of the object of the Act as expressed in its preamble, that is to say, the State government can only select those cases which, in their view, require speedier trial.

It is, therefore, clear, for the foregoing reasons, that the power to direct "cases" as distinct from "classes of cases" to be tried by a Special Court contem- plates and involves a purely arbitrary selection based on nothing more substantial than the whim and pleasure of State Government and without any appreciable relation to the necessity for a speedier trial. " Before considering whether section 5(1) infringes, to any and what extent, the constitutional prohibition under article 14, it is necessary to ascertain the true scope and intendment of the impugned provision.

The word "cases" has been used to signify a NRI Legal Services category distinct from "classes of cases". In any case, there is no particular bond connecting the circumstances of the first mentioned case with the necessity for a speedier trial. It has, on the other hand, acted under that part of the section which authorises it to direct" cases" to be tried by the Special Court, for by the notifications it has directed certain specific cases identified by their individual numbers in the records of the particular than as to be tried by the Special Court.

But the assumption that there would be a gain at some future (1) 30 Tax Cas. Apart, however, from that the learned Attorney- General's rule is equally capable of abuse.