2006 (7) TMI 670 - SC - Indian Laws

Power Of High Court u/s 482 of the CrPC - offence punishable u/s 302 - non- compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 173 of the CrPC - Whether the High Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction u/s 374(2) r/w Section 386 of the CrPC could direct further investigation of the case against the persons whom the High Court felt should have been included in the challan on the basis of the materials on record available before the appellate court? - HELD THAT - The High Court while exercising its revisional or appellate power may exercise its inherent powers. Inherent power of the High Court can be exercised it is trite both in relation to substantive as also procedural matters. In respect of the incidental or supplemental power evidently the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction irrespective of the nature of the proceedings. It is not trammeled by procedural restrictions in that; (i) power can be exercised suo motu in the interest of justice. If such a power is not conceded it may even lead to injustice to an accused. (ii) Such a power can be exercised concurrently with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction and no formal application is required to be filed therefor. (iii) It is however beyond any doubt that the power u/s 482 of the CrPC is not unlimited. It can inter alia be exercised where the Code is silent where the power of the court is not treated as exhaustive or there is a specific provision in the Code; or the statute does not fall within the purview of the Code because it involves application of a special law. It acts ex debito justitiae. It can thus do real and substantial justice for which alone it exists. We have noticed hereinbefore that the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate in the matter of issuance of process or taking of cognizance depends upon existence of conditions precedent therefor. The Magistrate has jurisdiction in the event a final form is filed (i) to accept the final form; (ii) in the event a protest petition is filed to treat the same as a complaint petition and if a prima facie case is made out to issue processes; (iii) to take cognizance of the offences against a person although a final form has been filed by the police in the event he comes to the opinion that sufficient materials exist in the case diary itself therefor; and (iv) to direct re- investigation into the matter. Similarly the power of the Sessions Judge to summon a person to stand trial with the other accused in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 319 of the CrPC is also limited inasmuch as from the evidences of the witnesses it must clearly be found that the proceedee had a role to play in the commission of an offence. So far as inherent power of the High Court is concerned indisputably the same is required to be exercised sparingly. The High Court may or may not in a given situation particularly having regard to lapse of time exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. For the said purpose it was not only required to apply its mind to the materials on records but was also required to consider as to whether any purpose would be served thereby. Hence we are of the opinion that before issuing the impugned directions the High Court should have given an opportunity of hearing to the Appellants herein. Thus the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. The High Court shall issue notice to the Appellants herein as also the State and pass appropriate orders as it may deem fit and proper and in accordance with law. The appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is available while dealing with a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused.
2. Whether the High Court could direct further investigation against persons not included in the chargesheet.
3. Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent and supervisory powers under Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Whether the High Court's directions were issued without complying with the principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court in Criminal Appeals:
The principal question was whether the High Court's inherent jurisdiction is available in a Criminal Appeal. The case involved the death of an individual, and the High Court's judgment had directed further investigation and prosecution of certain individuals not originally charged. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had a prominent place in the Code of Criminal Procedure and could exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to correct errors and prevent abuse of process.

2. Directions for Further Investigation:
The High Court had directed the CB-CID to re-investigate and prosecute individuals not included in the initial chargesheet. The Supreme Court observed that while the High Court has the power to direct further investigation, it should not interfere with the statutory power of the investigating agency. The High Court's direction to the State Public Prosecutor to determine the charges and re-investigate was beyond its jurisdiction.

3. Exercise of Inherent and Supervisory Powers:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court could exercise its inherent powers concurrently with its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. However, this power is not unlimited and must be exercised sparingly to prevent injustice. The High Court's suo motu exercise of power under Section 482 was permissible but should have been done with caution, especially in extraordinary situations.

4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The High Court's directions were issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court highlighted that in cases where the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction, it should be circumspect and ensure that the rights of the accused are not taken away without due process. The High Court should have given the appellants an opportunity to present their case before issuing such directions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. It directed the High Court to issue notices to the appellants and the State, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appeals were allowed with these observations and directions.