2003 (5) TMI 524 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the intercepted conversations as evidence.
2. Jurisdiction and power of the High Court u/s 227 of the Constitution and u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
3. Maintainability of the applications/petitions before the High Court.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Intercepted Conversations as Evidence:
The prosecution argued that the intercepted conversations disclosed the involvement of the respondents in the conspiracy to attack the Parliament of India. The Special Judge initially dismissed the respondents' application to exclude the intercepted conversations as evidence, holding that the evidence collected under different provisions of law could not be disregarded merely because POTA provisions were added later. The Supreme Court noted that the Special Judge should have followed the procedure laid down in Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat, which allows objections to be decided at the final judgment stage, thus avoiding unnecessary delays.

2. Jurisdiction and Power of the High Court u/s 227 of the Constitution and u/s 482 CrPC:
The High Court's impugned judgment did not specify whether it exercised its power under Article 227 or inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court clarified that Article 227 gives the High Court supervisory jurisdiction to keep subordinate courts within their authority, which should be exercised sparingly. Similarly, u/s 482 CrPC, the inherent power should be used only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, and not against an express bar of law. The Supreme Court found that the High Court should not have interfered at this stage, as the evidence had already been recorded and the trial was at its final stage.

3. Maintainability of the Applications/Petitions Before the High Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the order dated 11th July 2002 was an interlocutory order, and u/s 34 POTA, no appeal or revision lies against such orders. The High Court's interference resulted in a peculiar situation where a single judge's order constrained a division bench hearing a statutory appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondents should have raised their objections in the statutory appeal u/s 34 POTA. The High Court should have refused to interfere and left the parties to agitate their contentions in the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, and refrained from expressing any opinion on merits, clarifying that all parties are free to urge all questions in the pending appeals before the division bench of the High Court.