9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of the respondent to file an application under Section 340 CrPC. 2. Jurisdiction of the Designated Court to entertain the application. 3. Whether contradictory statements by the public prosecutor amount to offenses under Section 340 CrPC. 4. Impact of the Designated Judge's order on the functioning of the public prosecutor. 5. The role of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution in this context. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Locus Standi of the Respondent: The Designated Judge initially held that the respondent had locus standi to file an application under Section 340 CrPC, emphasizing that the court could entertain a complaint even from a stranger if it addressed grievances affecting the administration of justice. The Supreme Court agreed with this view, noting that in criminal law, any citizen aware of a crime can set the law into motion. The Court stated, "We proceed on the basis that the respondent has locus standi to present the complaint before the Designated Judge." 2. Jurisdiction of the Designated Court: The Designated Judge found that he had the jurisdiction to entertain the application, despite the appellant not being notified. The Supreme Court did not directly challenge the Designated Judge's jurisdiction but focused on the appropriateness of entertaining the application. The Court noted, "It is not necessary to pursue the approach of either of the party," indicating that the jurisdictional issue was secondary to the merits of the complaint. 3. Contradictory Statements by the Public Prosecutor: The primary issue was whether the public prosecutor's contradictory statements at different stages of the case amounted to offenses under Section 340 CrPC. The Supreme Court concluded that such statements did not constitute fabricating evidence or any other offense under Section 195 CrPC. The Court reasoned, "By no stretch of imagination, can we say that the stand of a counsel, however, inconsistent it may be at different stages of the proceedings, can amount to offenses adverted to under Section 195 CrPC." 4. Impact on the Public Prosecutor's Functioning: The Supreme Court expressed concern that the Designated Judge's order would adversely affect the public prosecutor's ability to function effectively. The Court emphasized the need for public prosecutors to operate with "full freedom" and without fear of prosecution for their statements in court. The judgment stated, "This is not the kind of atmosphere where a public prosecutor can function effectively, independently and fearlessly." 5. Role of the Supreme Court under Article 136: The respondent argued that the Supreme Court should not entertain the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, as it would affect a statutory right of appeal. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, asserting its discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any court or tribunal decision in India. The Court clarified, "The power of this Court to grant leave to appeal from any decision of any court or tribunal is not subject to any limitation and is left entirely to the discretion of this Court." Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Designated Judge's order, and dismissed the respondent's application under Section 340 CrPC. The Court also restrained the respondent from engaging in similar litigation in the future, warning that any such applications would be dismissed in limine and appropriate proceedings initiated against him. The judgment concluded, "The appeal is allowed accordingly."
|
