9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (12) TMI 656 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the High Court can pass an order on an application entertained after final disposal of the criminal appeal or even suo motu particularly, in view of the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - whether in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court can ask a particular investigating agency to investigate a case following a particular procedure through an exceptionally unusual method which is not in consonance with the statutory provisions of Cr.P.C. Held that - The error in the impugned orders of the High Court transgresses judicious discretion. The process adopted by the High Court led to greater injustice than securing the ends of justice. The path charted by the High Court inevitably reflects a biased approach. It was a misplaced sympathy for a cause that can be termed as being inconsistent to the legal framework. Law is an endless process of testing and retesting as said by Justice Cardozo in his conclusion of the Judicial Process, ending in a constant rejection of the dross and retention of whatever is pure and sound. The multi-dimensional defective legal process adopted by the court below cannot be justified on any rational legal principle. The High Court was swayed away by considerations that are legally impermissible and unsustainable. In view of the above, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders challenged herein are declared to be nullity and as a consequence, the FIR registered by the CBI is also quashed.
Issues Involved:
1. Judicial Bias 2. Doctrine of Waiver 3. Bar to Review/Alter Judgment 4. Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Jurisdiction of the Bench 6. When CBI Enquiry Can Be Directed Detailed Analysis: I. Judicial Bias The issue of judicial bias was raised due to allegations against a judge of having bias/prejudice. The court emphasized that suspicion or bias disables an official from acting as an adjudicator. The court cited various judgments to underline that the apprehension of bias must be reasonable and that a judgment resulting from bias is a nullity. The court explained that the principle of nemo debet esse judex in causa propria sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause) is fundamental to judicial impartiality. II. Doctrine of Waiver The court discussed the doctrine of waiver, explaining that if a party is aware of the facts and their right to object but fails to do so, they may be deemed to have waived their right to object. The court cited precedents to illustrate that waiver involves the intentional relinquishment of a known right and that inaction does not always imply consent or acquiescence. III. Bar to Review/Alter Judgment The court reiterated that there is no power of review with the Criminal Court after a judgment has been rendered, as per Section 362 Cr.P.C. The court becomes functus officio once the judgment is signed and cannot alter it except for clerical or arithmetical errors. The prohibition in Section 362 Cr.P.C. is absolute, and even the High Court cannot alter/review the judgment using its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. IV. Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court clarified that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are intended to prevent abuse of the court process and secure the ends of justice. These powers cannot be used to do something expressly barred by the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that such powers should be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases to prevent miscarriage of justice. V. Jurisdiction of the Bench The court highlighted that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and has the exclusive prerogative to assign cases to different benches. A judge or bench can assume jurisdiction only if the case is allotted by the Chief Justice. Any deviation from this procedure is impermissible and can render the judge coram non-judice (without jurisdiction). VI. When CBI Enquiry Can Be Directed The court stated that a constitutional court can direct a CBI investigation only if a prima facie case is made out against the accused based on the pleadings and material on record. The person against whom the investigation is sought must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The court cannot direct a roving inquiry and must ensure that the accused is a powerful and influential person who could influence the investigation. Instant Cases: The court found that the High Court had entertained applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a disposed of appeal, which was beyond its jurisdiction. The High Court's directions to the CBI to investigate certain missing persons and proclaimed offenders were found to be unwarranted and not in accordance with the law. The court noted that the High Court had adopted an unusual and unwarranted procedure, enlarging the scope of investigation without proper jurisdiction. Conclusions: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's orders were a nullity due to judicial bias, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of Section 362 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the FIR registered by the CBI based on these orders was also quashed. The court allowed the applicants to take recourse to fresh proceedings if permissible by law.
|
