2008 (5) TMI 402 - HC - Companies Law

Whether orders passed by Special Court, which are of interlocutory nature, can be subjected to judicial review of High Court under articles 226 and 227

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Nature of the order passed by the Special Court (interlocutory or final).
3. Conformity of the Special Court's order with Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The primary issue was whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition against an order passed by the Special Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that the Special Court, despite being presided over by a High Court Judge, does not equate to a High Court. The petitioner's counsel cited the Supreme Court's judgment in the Special Courts Bill, 1978, In re AIR 1979 SC 478, emphasizing the benign presence of Article 226, which ensures judicial scrutiny by the High Court. The petitioner also referenced L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [1997] 3 SCC 261, which upheld the High Court's power of judicial review under Article 226/227 over decisions of Tribunals. The Advocate General contended that the Special Court was not a Tribunal and thus not subordinate to the High Court. However, the court concluded that the orders of the Special Court, being interlocutory, could be subjected to judicial review under Articles 226 and 227.

2. Nature of the Order Passed by the Special Court:
The next issue was whether the impugned order was interlocutory or final. The petitioner argued that the order was interlocutory and thus not appealable to the Supreme Court under Section 10 of the Special Court Act. The court referred to V.C. Shukla v. State 1980 Supp. SCC 92, which defined an interlocutory order as one that does not determine the final rights of the parties. The court applied this principle, noting that if the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had been rejected, the matter would have ended for the petitioner. However, since the application was allowed, the petitioner had to face trial, making the order interlocutory in nature.

3. Conformity with Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The petitioner challenged the Special Court's order under Section 319 Cr.P.C., arguing that the court did not discuss any evidence warranting the petitioner's arraignment as an accused. The court examined precedents, including Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2000] 3 SCC 262, which emphasized that the court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence collected regarding the involvement of another person in the offence. The court also referenced Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kisan Rohtagi [1983] 1 SCC 1, which stated that the power under Section 319 should be used sparingly and only for compelling reasons. The court found that the Special Court had not adhered to these principles and thus remanded the matter back for reconsideration by the Special Judge.

Conclusion:
The High Court ruled that the writ petition was maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It determined that the impugned order was interlocutory and not appealable to the Supreme Court. The court found that the Special Court's order did not conform to the requirements of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and remanded the matter for a fresh decision by the Special Judge, in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →