9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1487 - SC - Indian LawsPrinciples of natural justice - entire criminal proceedings including the charge-sheet and the summoning order quashed by High Court - High Court has not properly appreciated and/or considered the larger conspiracy while quashing - mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure or not? - HELD THAT - At the outset it is required to be noted that the High Court has delivered the impugned judgment and order after a period of six months after the matter was reserved for judgment. Though the judgment and order passed by the High Court may not be set aside on the aforesaid ground only however it is always advisable that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved. While emphasizing the need to pronounce the reserved judgment at the earliest and within a reasonable time this Court in the case of ANIL RAI VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR 2001 (8) TMI 1330 - SUPREME COURT has observed and held It is the policy and purpose of law to have speedy justice for which efforts are required to be made to come up to the expectation of the society of ensuring speedy untainted and unpolluted justice. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court has not appreciated and considered the fact that both the FIRs namely FIR Nos. 260 of 2018 and 227 of 2019 can be said to be interconnected and the allegations of a larger conspiracy are required to be investigated. It is alleged that the overall allegations are disappearance of the trucks transporting the beer/contraband goods which are subject to the Rules and Regulations of the Excise Department and Excise Law - The High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings by observing that there was no loss to the Excise Department. However the High Court has not at all appreciated the allegations of the larger conspiracy. The FIR need not be an encyclopedia. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. 2. Allegations of larger conspiracy and interconnected FIRs. 3. Conduct of a mini trial by the High Court. 4. Delay in pronouncement of judgment by the High Court. 5. Scope of investigation and jurisdiction of the High Court. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC The Supreme Court addressed the appeals filed against the High Court's decision to quash criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 260 of 2018. The High Court had exercised its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings, including the charge-sheet and summoning order, which the Supreme Court found to be an overreach of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have conducted a mini trial at this stage and should not have delved into the appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible under Section 482 CrPC. Issue 2: Allegations of larger conspiracy and interconnected FIRs The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to appreciate the interconnected nature of FIRs No. 260 of 2018 and 227 of 2019, which involved allegations of a larger conspiracy concerning the disappearance of trucks loaded with beer. The High Court's decision to quash the proceedings without considering the broader conspiracy and interconnected nature of the FIRs was deemed erroneous. The Supreme Court highlighted that the allegations were serious, involving the disappearance of trucks and potential forgery of data, which required thorough investigation. Issue 3: Conduct of a mini trial by the High Court The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for conducting what amounted to a mini trial while deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC. It reiterated that the High Court should not have engaged in an in-depth analysis of the evidence at this stage. The Supreme Court cited previous rulings, emphasizing that such an approach is not permissible when exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC. Issue 4: Delay in pronouncement of judgment by the High Court The Supreme Court expressed concern over the six-month delay by the High Court in delivering the judgment after reserving it. While acknowledging that the judgment should not be set aside solely on this ground, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of timely pronouncement of judgments to maintain public confidence in the judicial system. The Court referenced its decision in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, underscoring the need for prompt delivery of judgments to avoid unnecessary speculation and maintain the integrity of the judiciary. Issue 5: Scope of investigation and jurisdiction of the High Court The Supreme Court found that the High Court had improperly curtailed the scope of the investigation by transferring it to the CB-CID and limiting its focus to FIR No. 227 of 2019. The Supreme Court emphasized that both FIRs were interconnected and involved serious allegations that required comprehensive investigation. The High Court's failure to recognize this interconnectedness and the broader conspiracy was a significant oversight. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and order quashing the criminal proceedings. It restored the proceedings before the Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 5694 of 2019, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation into the serious allegations of conspiracy and forgery. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of not conducting mini trials under Section 482 CrPC and ensuring timely pronouncement of judgments to uphold public confidence in the judicial system.
|
