9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Inherent jurisdiction of Sub-ordinate Criminal Courts outside the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Scope of Article 141 of the Constitution. Summary: Inherent Jurisdiction of Sub-ordinate Criminal Courts: The primary issue was whether a Sub-ordinate Criminal Court has any inherent jurisdiction outside the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellants were accused in a complaint filed u/s 67 and 72C(1)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952, read with Regulation 106 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation, 1961. The complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate due to the absence of both the complainant and the accused. The Magistrate later restored the complaint upon the complainant's application, which was contested by the accused on the grounds that the Magistrate had become functus officio. The Magistrate rejected this contention, asserting inherent powers to review and recall his earlier orders. Subsequent revisions by the accused to higher courts were dismissed, with the Delhi High Court relying on an earlier decision that criminal courts had certain inherent powers. The Supreme Court, referencing its decision in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, held that no criminal court has inherent jurisdiction not provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court emphasized that the Criminal Procedure Code does not contain any provision enabling a Magistrate to exercise inherent jurisdiction to recall a dismissed complaint. The Court concluded that the Magistrate's order to recall the dismissal was without jurisdiction, rendering all subsequent proceedings null and void. Scope of Article 141 of the Constitution: The judgment also addressed the scope of Article 141 of the Constitution, which mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India. The Additional Sessions Judge had incorrectly interpreted the Supreme Court's decision as not having retrospective effect, treating it as a form of legislation by Parliament. The Supreme Court clarified that its judgments apply to all pending proceedings and are binding on all subordinate courts. The Court cited Shenoy and Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer to reinforce that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in one appeal affects all related cases, even if appeals were not filed against all parties involved in a common judgment. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for dismissing the revision in limine without considering the binding nature of its previous decisions. The Court reiterated that the law declared by it under Article 141 has an all-pervasive nature and must be followed by all subordinate courts. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, and restored the Magistrate's original order dismissing the complaint. The judgment underscored the lack of inherent jurisdiction in subordinate criminal courts to recall dismissed complaints and reinforced the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions under Article 141 of the Constitution.
|
