9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, while exercising jurisdiction, as Appellate Court or revisional Court. Relying upon judgment of M.R. Kudva [supra] a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Jang Singh Vs. State of Punjab, decided on 18.10.2007, reported as 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 323, held that the power to make sentences concurrent under Section 427 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised by the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A Single Bench of this Court [Hon'ble Mr. Justice Atul Kumar Jain] in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3014/2013, decided on 03.09.2013, relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pyari Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 Cr.L.J. 4599 (Raj.) and in M.R. Kudva [supra] also held as under:- "It has been admitted by the learned Advocate for the accused-petitioner in this Court that in all the four cases appeals of accused-petitioner Rocky have either been dismissed or he has not appealed against the judgment of the trial Court. In such a case benefit of concurrent sentences under the provisions of Section 427 Cr.P.C. cannot be ordered by this Court at this stage even with the help of Section 482, Cr.P.C. looking to the specific mandate of law propoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under:- "482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.--Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 8. A plain reading of this provision discloses that it is a clause saving powers of High Court necessary to be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of any court and also to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court examined scope and amplitude of this provision in several cases. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. 4934 (1), the Apex Court held as under:- "49. Section 482 of the Code, as its very language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words, 'nothing in this Code' which means that the provision is an overriding provision. These words leave no manner of doubt that none of the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also be provided." 9. In Surya Baksh Singh v. State of U.P. (2013 AIR SCW 5976), also the Apex Court examined the provisions of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and held as under:- "6. Last, but not least in our appreciation of the law, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. stands in solitary splendour. It preserves the inherent power of the High Court. It enunciates that nothing in the Cr.P.C. shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary, firstly, to 'give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C.', words which are not to be found in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter referred to as 'CPC'). Ergo, the High Court can, while exercising inherent powers in its criminal jurisdiction, take all necessary steps for enforcing compliance of its orders. For salutary reason Section 482 makes the criminal Court much more effective and all pervasive than the civil Court insofar as ensuring obedience of its orders is concerned. Secondly, Section 482 clarifies that the Cr.P.C. does not circumscribe the actions available to the High Court to prevent abuse of its process, from the inception of proceedings till t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors., reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489, it was held that saving of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to the laws made by the legislature. Without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. 13. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1978 SC 47, the Apex Court laid down certain governing principles to exercise authority under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure by High Courts and those can be summarised as under:- 1. Power is not to be resorted, if there is a specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal of grievances of the person aggrieved; 2. It should be exercised s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - "The High Court could not have exercised its inherent jurisdiction in a case of this nature as it had not exercised such jurisdiction while passing the judgments in appeal. Section 482 of the Code was, therefore, not an appropriate remedy having regard to the fact that neither the Trial Judge, nor the High Court while passing the judgments of conviction and sentence indicated that the sentences passed against the appellant in both the cases shall run concurrently or Section 427 would be attracted. The said provision, therefore, could not be applied in a separate and independent proceeding by the High Court." 16. Suffice to mention that in the case of M.R. Kudva (supra) the Apex Court while examining peculiar facts of that case did not measure scope of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. It was not necessary too as in that case the trial court after examining the submission relating to Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure arrived at the conclusion that the accused does not deserve any sympathy, meaning thereby, the court considered that aspect of the matter by due application of mind and that order acquired finality being affirmed by Supreme Court. No occasion, as such wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as principle." 19. The Full Bench as a matter of fact found itself bound by the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R. Kudva (supra) without taking notice of the fact that in that case Apex Court was examining peculiar facts without examining the scope of the inherent powers of High Court saved under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 20. The Full Bench while laying down the principles to exercise discretion under Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure, while relying upon the observations made in M.R. Kudva's case (supra), held that the discretion as per Section 427 Code of Criminal Procedure is available with the trial court, appellate court or the revisional court, but not to the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 21. A Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Mulaim Singh v. State, reported in 1974 Cr.L.J. 1397, examined the issue in question in detail and arrived at the conclusion as under:- "12. ..... ........... whether as an original court or as an appellate court, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the subsequent trial to apply its mind to the question whether the sentence on subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 [1] SCC [Cri.] 648] : (AIR 2007 SC 568) and had dismissed the prayer on the ground that this plea should have been taken only before the trial court and cannot be taken up by way of a petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. It may be relevant to state here that a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Madhanlal [2009 (5) SCC 238] : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2836) has refused to interfere with an order of Punjab and Haryana High Court passed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereby the sentences were directed to run concurrently under Section 427 Cr.P.C., in a matter relating to an accused who was convicted and sentenced for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in three different cases. The conflicting views between the judgment in Kuduva's case [which is by a two Judges Bench] and Madhanlal's case (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2836) [which is by a three Judges Bench] was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in K. Arasan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2012 (6) CTC 510] and this Court held that a prisoner can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case where both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court or the Revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... du [AIR 2005 SC 2132], where the consecutive life sentences awarded on the accused by the trial court was confirmed by this Court in appeal as well by the Apex Court. That was a case where, in the same trial the accused therein were charged for various offences like sections 376 and 302, IPC and were awarded life imprisonment, which were directed to run consecutively under section 31, Cr.P.C. In this case, the prisoner herein, was awarded life imprisonment by two different Courts in two different cases and therefore, section 31, Cr.P.C. will not apply. 5. Section 427(2), Cr.P.C. is a direction to the prison authorities to treat two life imprisonments as concurrent and there is no scope for Court's charity here, because it is a legislative guarantee. The Courts cannot take away this right nor the jail authorities deny the prisoner this right. It is manifestly clear that the prisoner need not have to invoke any jurisdiction, be it under Section 482, Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and cringe for mercy to have two life sentences run concurrently. Unfortunately in this case, the prisoner filed application in M.P. No. 170/2009 in Crl.A. No. 142/1996 with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra) the Division Bench of Madras High Court held that the order passed by Single Bench of that Court was per incuriam because that ignored the mandate of Section 427(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, but at the same time invoked inherent powers of High Court to meet the ends of justice and also to untied the Gordian knot to release the prisoner from a legal mess. The court while doing so also observed about availability of remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of the grievances of aggrieved person and to secure ends of justice. 24. Reference of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2013 Cr.L.J. 3986, is also desirable here, wherein the court examined the question that whether the High Court was right in declining the prayer made by the appellant for a direction in terms of Section 427 read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for the sentences awarded in connection with the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the case aforesaid the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the miscellaneous applications moved under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
