9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an order passed in exercise of revisional powers under Cr. P.C. by a Sessions Judge can be set aside by his successor at the instance of the same petitioner when it was not challenged further? 2. Whether such an order, assuming it was passed not in revisional jurisdiction, attain finality? 3. Whether the word 'evidence' includes the statement in examination-in-chief of the witness who was not cross-examined fully? 4. Whether a Sessions Judge can review an order passed under Section 244 Cr. P.C. by his predecessor suo motu regardless of the considerations of limitation under the Limitation Act? 5. Can an Additional Sessions Judge before whom order of discharge was challenged set aside previous order of another Additional Sessions Judge and give directions thereunder? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Revisional Powers and Successor Judge The judgment addresses whether an order passed by a Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction can be set aside by his successor. The court held that such an action exceeds the jurisdiction of the successor judge, as it amounts to legal impropriety. The successor judge, Mr. G.P. Thareja, could not have set aside the order of his predecessor, Mr. N.K. Gupta, as it was not challenged further. This action was deemed an abuse of the process of the court and against the settled legal principle that an Additional Sessions Judge of concurrent jurisdiction cannot sit over the judgment of another Additional Sessions Judge. Issue 2: Finality of Non-Revisional Orders The court clarified that orders which substantially affect the rights of the accused cannot be considered interlocutory and thus attain finality once affirmed by a competent court. The closure of pre-charge evidence by Mrs. Sunita Gupta, ACMM, which was affirmed by Mr. N.K. Gupta, ASJ, had attained finality. The prosecution did not challenge this order, and thus, it could not be re-opened by the successor judge. Issue 3: Definition of 'Evidence' The court examined whether the statement of a witness who was not fully cross-examined could be considered as evidence. It concluded that incomplete statements, where cross-examination is not conducted, do not attain the status of evidence. The credibility of a witness can only be assessed after full cross-examination. Therefore, the incomplete statement of PW-1 could not be relied upon as evidence, and the observation by the learned ASJ that it could be used to support the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was contrary to law. Issue 4: Suo Motu Review by Sessions Judge The judgment discussed whether a Sessions Judge could review an order passed under Section 244 Cr. P.C. by his predecessor suo motu. It was held that Mr. G.P. Thareja exceeded his jurisdiction by setting aside the order of closure of pre-charge evidence and the subsequent order of discharge. The court emphasized that such an action was not permissible as it amounted to sitting in appeal over the order of his predecessor, which is barred under law. Issue 5: Additional Sessions Judge Setting Aside Previous Order The court held that an Additional Sessions Judge cannot set aside the order of another Additional Sessions Judge and issue directions thereunder. Mr. G.P. Thareja's actions in setting aside the orders of Mrs. Sunita Gupta, ACMM, and Mr. N.K. Gupta, ASJ, were beyond his jurisdiction. The judgment reaffirmed that such actions violate the principle of finality in judicial proceedings and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. Conclusion: The court concluded that the impugned order by Mr. G.P. Thareja, ASJ, could not be sustained as it was beyond his jurisdiction and contrary to established legal principles. The order was set aside, reaffirming the finality of the previous orders and the proper interpretation of 'evidence' under the law.
|
