2011 (12) TMI 656 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court can pass an order on an application entertained after final disposal of the criminal appeal or even suo motu particularly in view of the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - whether in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court can ask a particular investigating agency to investigate a case following a particular procedure through an exceptionally unusual method which is not in consonance with the statutory provisions of Cr.P.C. Held that - The error in the impugned orders of the High Court transgresses judicious discretion. The process adopted by the High Court led to greater injustice than securing the ends of justice. The path charted by the High Court inevitably reflects a biased approach. It was a misplaced sympathy for a cause that can be termed as being inconsistent to the legal framework. Law is an endless process of testing and retesting as said by Justice Cardozo in his conclusion of the Judicial Process ending in a constant rejection of the dross and retention of whatever is pure and sound. The multi-dimensional defective legal process adopted by the court below cannot be justified on any rational legal principle. The High Court was swayed away by considerations that are legally impermissible and unsustainable. In view of the above the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders challenged herein are declared to be nullity and as a consequence the FIR registered by the CBI is also quashed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment were:

• Whether the High Court could pass an order on an application entertained after the final disposal of a criminal appeal, particularly in light of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
• Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct a particular investigating agency to investigate a case using an unusual method not in consonance with statutory provisions.
• The implications of judicial bias and whether a judge should have recused themselves due to alleged bias.
• Whether the doctrine of waiver applies when allegations of bias are not raised at the earliest opportunity.
• The extent of the High Court's power to review or alter its judgment after it has been signed and whether such powers can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
• The jurisdiction of the Bench and whether the allocation of cases was adhered to as per the Chief Justice's orders.
• Under what circumstances can a CBI inquiry be directed by the court?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

I. Judicial Bias

The Court examined the principles surrounding judicial bias, emphasizing the necessity for impartiality and neutrality. It was noted that even the appearance of bias could vitiate a judgment. The Court referenced several precedents to underline that the apprehension of bias must be reasonable and not based on mere suspicion. The Court concluded that the allegations of bias against the judge in this case were significant enough to question the impartiality of the proceedings.

II. Doctrine of Waiver

The Court discussed the doctrine of waiver, which implies that if a party does not raise an objection at the earliest opportunity, they may be deemed to have waived their right to object. However, this applies only if the party was aware of the bias and had the opportunity to raise the issue. In this case, since neither the State of Punjab nor Mr. S.S. Saini were impleaded as parties, the question of waiver did not arise.

III. Bar to Review/Alter Judgment

The Court highlighted that Section 362 Cr.P.C. prohibits the review or alteration of a judgment once it is signed, except for clerical or arithmetical errors. The High Court's actions in reopening the case after the judgment was signed were found to be contrary to this provision, rendering the subsequent proceedings a nullity.

IV. Inherent Powers Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Court noted that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. However, these powers cannot be used to circumvent explicit statutory provisions or to review judgments. The High Court's use of Section 482 to entertain applications in a disposed appeal was found to be inappropriate and beyond its jurisdiction.

V. Jurisdiction of the Bench

The Court reiterated that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster, and no judge or bench can assume jurisdiction over a case not allocated to them. The High Court's actions in this case were found to have violated this principle, as the applications under Section 482 were entertained by a bench not assigned to hear them.

VI. When CBI Inquiry Can Be Directed

The Court clarified that a CBI inquiry can be directed in exceptional circumstances where the accused is powerful and influential, and the investigation may be biased. However, such directions must be based on prima facie evidence and the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard. The High Court's direction for a CBI inquiry in this case was found to be unwarranted.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that the High Court's actions were a nullity due to judicial bias, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of procedural norms. It emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the Chief Justice's roster in judicial proceedings. The Court quashed the CBI FIR as it was a direct consequence of the impugned orders, which were found to be invalid.

Key principles established include the necessity for judicial impartiality, the limitations of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the conditions under which a CBI inquiry can be directed. The Court also reinforced the doctrine of res judicata in the context of habeas corpus petitions.

The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were declared null, with the Court leaving open the possibility for fresh proceedings if permissible by law.