Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2018 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 3 - SC - Indian LawsOffence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Inherent power of a High Court available to stay a trial under the Act - whether order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order - instance of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) against the appellant and certain officers of MCD alleging causing of wrongful loss to the MCD by using fake invoices of Oil Companies relating to transportation of Bitumen for use in “Dense Carpeting Works” of roads in Delhi during the year 1997 and 1998 Held that:- A Bench of three Judges in Madhu Limaye (1977 (10) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT) held that legislature has sought to check delay in final disposal of proceedings in criminal cases by way of a bar to revisional jurisdiction against an interlocutory order under sub-Section 2 of Section 397 Cr.P.C. At the same time, inherent power of the High Court is not limited or affected by any other provision. It could not mean that limitation on exercise of revisional power is to be set at naught. Inherent power could be used for securing ends of justice or to check abuse of the process of the Court. This power has to be exercised very sparingly against a proceeding initiated illegally or vexatiously or without jurisdiction. The label of the petition is immaterial. Situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced. We declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re appreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period. Though no mandatory time limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed two-three months normally. If it remains pending longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months, unless extension is granted by a specific speaking order, as already indicated. Mandate of speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as other cases where at trial stage proceedings are stayed by the higher court i.e. the High Court or a court below the High Court, as the case may be. The High Courts may also issue instructions to this effect and monitor the same so that civil or criminal proceedings do not remain pending for unduly period at the trial stage. The question referred stands answered. The matter along with other connected matters, may now be listed before an appropriate Bench as first matter, subject to overnight part-heard, on Wednesday, the 18th April, 2018.
|