9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of this Court in C.S. Agarwal vs. State & Ors.(2011) 125 DRJ 241 (Del.) FB to substantiate his contention that no appeal can be maintained under Clause 10 of Letters Patent against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that Crl.M.C. No.4316/2016 has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. assailing an order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court. 4. However, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed the order dated 31.08.2016 in exercise of civil jurisdiction, the objection raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed. 7. In Harvinder Singh vs. Union of India (supra), the appellant's writ petition seeking his release from detention under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPSA) was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the dismissal of the writ petition a preliminary objection was raised by the respondent as to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appeal arises out of an order made in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. Overruling the said objection, the Division Bench held: "12. We are also of the view that, only because for the sake of convenience, such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercise of criminal jurisdiction. 9. Similar contention made on behalf of the appellants in C.S. Agarwal vs. State & Ors. (supra) was not accepted by the Full Bench of this Court. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in S.A.L. Narayan Row and Anr. vs. Ishwar Lal Bhagwan Das and Anr. AIR 1965 SC 1818, wherein it was observed that the nature of the proceedings whether civil or criminal would depend upon the nature of the right violated and the nature of relief sought in the said petition, the Full Bench held: "20. For this reason, we cannot agree with the extreme position taken by the appellants that the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution would never tantamount to exercisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the High Court is exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, the nature of proceedings, whether civil or criminal, would depend upon the nature of right violated and the nature of relief sought in the said petition." 10. Referring to the Division Bench judgment in Harvinder Singh vs. Union of India (supra), it was made clear by the Full Bench in C.S. Agarwal vs. State (supra) that the said decision which dealt with habeas corpus petition is of no assistance to decide the controversy since while dealing with such a petition, the Court is not exercising criminal jurisdiction as no criminal proceedings are pending. It was observed in that context: "29........In fact, the order of preventive detention is made without any trial under the crimin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
