Vol. 15 · pages 76–80

59PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Clauses 2 to 7 were added to the Bill. Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move: “That in clause 1, for the figures ‘1949’ the figures ‘1950’ be substituted.” The motion was adopted. Clause 1 , as amended, was added to the Bill. Mr. Chairman: The question is : “That the Preamable stand part of the Bill” The motion was negatived. Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move: “That for the existing Enacting Formula, the following be substituted :— ‘Be it enacted by Parliament as follows:—’.” Mr. Chairman: The question is: “That the Enacting Formula as amended stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted. The Enacting Formula, as amended, was added to the Bill. The Title was added to the Bill. Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move : “That the Bill, as amended, he passed.” The motion was adopted.

60 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (9) *CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): I beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill further to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is : “That leave be granted to introduce a Bill further to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.” The motion was adopted. Dr. Ambedkar: I introduce the Bill. **CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): I beg to move : “That the Bill further to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, be taken into consideration.” [SHRIMATI DURGABAI in the Chair .] The object of this measure is to replace Ordinance No. III of 1950, which is called the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1950. This Ordinance No. III of 1950 was passed in order to add a new section 9A to the Original Ordinance XXXVIII of 1944. The history of this Ordinance No. XXXVIII of 1944 may be helpful to hon. Members in order to understand why exactly the Ordinance III of 1950 was enacted. During the war the Government of India as well as the Government of the various Provinces had entrusted public property and public funds into the hands of certain persons such as contractors and officers of Government. It was found that some of these persons who were entrusted with Government property and funds had committed certain defalcations and consequently in order to try the delinquents * P. D. Vol. 2, Part II, 14th February 1950, p. 538. **Ibid, 28th February 1950, pp. 983-84.

61PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Ordinance XXXVIII of 1944 was passed, which constituted special tribunals for trying these offenders. These tribunals were spread all over India in the different Provinces of United India before the Partition. These tribunals were given power to freeze the property of the delinquent by passing attachment orders and the courts so empowered were courts within whose jurisdiction the delinquents stayed or carried on business. After the Partition a peculiar situation arose, namely that the tribunals which passed the orders of attachment against the properties of the delinquents became part of Pakistan, whereas the property of the delinquents remained in India proper. This difficulty has to a large extent held up the work of carrying on these trials. It is therefore now proposed that the power of passing further orders with respect to property which has already been attached by courts (which unfortunately happen to be now in Pakistan) should be transferred to courts operating within the Indian Republic. Consequently it is thought desirable to add this section 9A which permits the courts within whose jurisdiction the offences are now being tried to exercise the power of passing orders regarding the property which is held by these deliquents. The Ordinance was promulgated because the matter was regarded as very urgent. As the power of continuing the Ordinance is of a limited duration it is necessary to revise the Ordinance before the expiry of time by this measure. Mr. Chairman: Motion moved : “That the Bill further to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, be taken into consideration.” Shri Himatsingka (West Bengal): On a point of information, may I know if the property that has been attached by an order of the court is now in Paksitan. If the property continues there....... Dr. Ambedkar: The property is here. Mr. Chairman: The question is: “That the Bill further to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, be taken into consideration.”

62 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. Chairman: The question is: Mr. Chairman: There are no amendments. I will put the clauses. The question is: “That clauses 2 and 3 stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted. Clauses 2 and 3 were added to the Bill. Clause 1 was added to the Bill. The Title and the Enacting Formula were added to the Bill. Dr. Ambedkar: I beg to move: “That the Bill be passed.” Mr. Chairman: The question is: “That the Bill be passed.”. The motion was adopted.

63PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (10) MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT ESCAPE OF MIR LAIK ALI OF HYDERABAD FROM CUSTODY. * Mr. Speaker : May I ask who is the controlling authority or the directing authority, so far as the prosecution of Mir Laik Ali and others is concerned ? Sardar Patel: The final prosecution sanction is from the Nizam. The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): I do not know but the first impression which I have of this matter is this that Hyderabad is like any other State. There is no distinction between Hyderabad State under the Constitution in its relation to the Centre and, say, for instance Bombay in its relation to the Centre, which means that for subject matters set out in List II the responsibility is entirely of the State, while the responsibility, so far as subjects in List I are concerned, belong to the Centre. The same rule would apply to Hyderabad. That is to say that so far as the matter relating to the custody of Laik Ali is concerned, it is a matter of law and order which is undoubtedly under the Constitution a matter for local administration. On that footing, I submit that this is not a matter which constitutionally could be held to be under the control of the Central Government, but I should like to add one more remark, viz. that in view of the fact that there is no local legislature to which the local Ministry could be held to be responsible, it is possible—I speak subject to correction—that whatever action is being taken by the local administration is perhaps done under the power which the Constitution vests in the Central Government of direction and control over certain States. I am not yet aware as to what * P.D., Vol. 2, Part II, 7th March 1950, pp. 1179-80.