9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Whether the Supreme Court can issue a non-bailable warrant for the arrest and committal to prison of an accused who had been acquitted by the High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Judgment Details: Issue 1: Power of Supreme Court to issue non-bailable warrant for arrest of acquitted accused: The petitioner's counsel argued that the Supreme Court lacks the power to issue a non-bailable warrant for the arrest of an accused who has been acquitted by the High Court, as it would violate constitutional rights. However, the respondent's counsel contended that the Supreme Court, under Article 142 read with Article 136, has the authority to exercise powers similar to those of the High Court in such cases. The Court rejected the petitioner's contentions, emphasizing the historical perspective of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the inherent powers of the High Court to secure the attendance of the accused during the appeal process. It was established that the Supreme Court, upon granting special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal, can exercise powers equivalent to those of the High Court under the Code. The Court highlighted that the discretion to issue a bailable or non-bailable warrant rests with the Court, considering factors such as the nature of the offense, evidence, possibility of absconding, and public interest. Such discretionary jurisdiction is invoked sparingly in exceptional cases where the High Court's acquittal order is deemed perverse or results in a miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Court dismissed the argument that such orders violate fundamental rights, stating that they are made within the plenary jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution and do not deprive the accused of liberty unlawfully. The Court concluded that the Supreme Court can indeed issue a non-bailable warrant for the arrest and committal to prison of an accused who had been acquitted by the High Court on a capital charge, in line with Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution. The Court declined to delve into the cases cited by the petitioner's counsel, as they were deemed irrelevant to the current issue. In light of the above reasons, the Court answered the initial question in the affirmative and disposed of the references accordingly.
|
