TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Joint Director of Intelligence Bureau, who was associated with the investigation. It is the case of the prosecution that this authorisation was as per the provisions of the Telegraph Act i.e. Section 5 of the Telegraph Act read with Rule 419A. It is the case of the prosecution that the interception disclosed the involvement of the respondents in the conspiracy to attack the Parliament of India. It is the case of the prosecution that as a result of the interceptions and the interrogation of the respondents, it was disclosed that the slain terrorists and the respondents were in touch with one Ghazi Baba, who is a Pakistani national and the supreme commander of Jaish-e-Mohammed which is a notified and banned terrorist organisation under Section 18 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and the schedule thereto (the Prevention of Terrorism Act will hereinafter be referred to as POTA). It is the case of the prosecution that after the investigating officers had, in the course of the investigation, collected the relevant and cogent material it was found that a case under POTA was made out. It is the case of the prosecution that relevant sections of POTA were added on 19th December, 2001 onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In such a situation the higher court may have to send the case back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. 14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be precluded from deciding an important point of law by an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court. Thereafter the trial proceeded. The evidence was recorded/taken. The respondent Ms Navjot Sandhu filed Criminal Writ Petition No 774 of 2002. On 22nd July, 2002 the following order was passed therein: Learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw this petition in order to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Leave as prayed is granted. Crl. W. 774/2002 and Crl. M. 588/2002 are accordingly disposed of. Respondent Ms Navjot Sandhu then filed Criminal Misc. No 2331 of 2002 under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 11th July, 2002 of the Special Judge. Respondent Syed Abdul Rehman Geelani filed Criminal Appeal the title of which reads as under: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Criminal Appeal No. of 2002 In the matter of : Syed Abdul Rehman Geelani S/o Syed Abdul Wali Geelani, R/o 535, IInd Floor, Mukherje Nagar, Delhi Appellant/accused Versus State (NCT of Delhi) IN THE MATTER OF:-FIR No. 417/02 U/S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days. A plain reading of Section 34 shows that no appeal would lie against an interlocutory order. It could not be denied that the order dated 11th July, 2002 was an interlocutory order. It must also be noted that the Appeal must be heard by a bench of two judges of the High Court. It must be mentioned that Respondent Shaukat Hussain had also filed a Criminal Misc Application No. 2484 of 2002 praying that the order dated 11th July, 2002 be quashed. By the impugned judgment the High Court has disposed of all the above Petitions/Applications. The High Court has not mentioned whether it was exercising its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The question thus arises as to what power or jurisdiction the High Court has exercised. The only source of power which might have been used/invoked was either under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or the inherent power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the case of State of Gujarat versus V. S. Vaghela others reported in (1968) 3 SCR 869 it is held that Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It is held that this jurisdiction cannot be lim ited or fettered by any act of the State Legislature. It is held that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate Tribunal s within the limits of the authority and to seeing that they obey the law. In the case of Madhu Limaye versus State of Maharashtra reported in AIR (1978) SC 47 the question was whether the High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash an interlocutory order. In this judgment the provision of Section 397 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which barred a revision against an interlocutory order, were also considered. It was held that the purpose of putting a bar on the power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in an appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding is to bring about expeditious disposal of cases finally. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is held that even though a second revision to the High Court is prohibited by Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the inherent power is still available under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was held that the object of criminal trial is to render public justice, to punish the criminal and to see that the trial is concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witness fades out. It is held that the recent trend is to delay the trial and threaten the witnesses or to win even the witnesses by promise or inducement. It is held that these malpractices need to be curbed and that public justice can be ensured only if trial is allowed to be conducted expeditiously. It is held that even though the power under Section 482 is very wide it must be exercised sparingly and cautiously and only to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. In the case of Pepsi foods Ltd and another versus Special Judicial Magistrates and others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 it has been held as follows: 21. The question which arise for consideration are if in the circumstances of the case, the appellants rightly approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not only administrative superintendence over the subordinate courts and tribunals but it has also the power of judicial superintendence. The Court approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. vs. Sukumar Mukherjee [AIR 1951 Cal 193] where the High Court said that the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 was to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting their mere errors. The Court said that it was, therefore, a case which called for an interference by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner and it acted quite properly in doing so. 24. In Bathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarta [(1975) 1 SCC 858] this Court again reaffirmed that the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 being extraordinary was to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. It said that the High Court could not, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal functioned within the limits of its authority and that it could not correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 482 is not affected by the provisions of Section 397 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is held that the High Court can interfere even if the order is an interlocutory order. It is held th at for securing the end of justice the High Court can interfere with an order which causes miscarriage of justice or is palpably illegal or is unjustified. It was also noticed that the High Court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction, under Section 482, on the basis of selfimposed restriction. In the case of Satya Narayanan Sharma versus State of Rajasthan reported in (2001) 8 SCC 607 it has been held that Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code starts with the words Nothing in the Code . It is held that this inherent power can be exercised even if there is a contrary provision in the Criminal Procedure Code. It is held that Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide that inherent jurisdiction can be exercised notwithstanding any other provision contained in any other enactment . It has been held that if any other enactment contains a specific bar then inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to get over that bar. In the case of Ouseph Mathai and ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of evidence, the High Court transgressed its limits of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. On the first point, therefore, the High Court was in error. 6. In Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi [(1995) 6 SCC 576] this Court held that the High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in a dispute regarding eviction of tenant under the Rent Control Act, a special legislation governing landlord-tenant relationship. To the same effect is the judgment in Koyilerian Janaki v. Rent Controller (Munsiff) [(2000) 9 SCC 406]. 7. In the present appeals, the High Court appears to have assumed the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution without referring to the facts of the case warranting the exercise of such a jurisdiction. Extraordinary power appear to have been exercised in a routine manner as if the power under Article 227 of the Constitution was the extension of powers conferred upon a litigant under a specified statute. Such an approach and interpretation is unwarranted. By adopting such an approach some High courts have assumed jurisdiction even in matters to w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts with the words Nothing in this Code . Thus the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised even when there is a bar under Section 397 or some other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However as is set out in Satya Narayanan Sharma s case (supra) this power cannot be exercised if there is a statutory bar in some other enactment. If the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character, which could be corrected in exercise of revisional powers or appellate powers the High Court must refuse to exercise its inherent power. The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. The inherent power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which require interference would be few and far between. The most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out herein above fall in this category. It must be remembered that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liar situation is that the division bench, hearing a statutory appeal (both on law and facts) is bound/constrained by an order of a single Judge. The order of the Special Judge is based on an interpretation of the various provisions of POTA. The Special Judge undoubtedly had authority and jurisdiction to interpret the various provisions of POTA and other laws. The Special Judge had jurisdiction to decide whether the evidence collected by interception could be used for proving a charge under POTA. The Special Judge was acting within the limits of his authority in passing the impugned order. We are told that before single Judge of the High Court the arguments, by both sides, went on for approximately two weeks. Even before us considerable time was taken. This is being mentioned only to indicate that the question is not so clear. It requires interpretation of various provisions of POTA. Neither the power under Article 227 nor the power under Section 482 enabled the High Court to correct an error in interpretation even if the High Court felt that the order dated 11th July 2002 was erroneous. Even if the High Court did not agree with the correctness of that order, the High Court should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
