9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1780 - SC - Indian LawsJurisdiction - whether the learned Single Judge, in the obtaining factual matrix has exercised criminal jurisdiction or not? - HELD THAT - In the instant case, we are really not concerned with the nature of the post held by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta. We are also not concerned how the recommendation of the said authorities is to be challenged and what will be the procedure therefor. As has been held by this Court, neither the Lokayukta nor Upa Lokayukta can direct implementation of his report, but it investigates and after investigation, if it is found that a public servant has committed a criminal offence, prosecution can be initiated. On a plain reading of the aforesaid clause of the Letters Patent, it is manifest that no appeal lies against the order passed by the Single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. Thus, the question that is required to be posed is whether the learned Single Judge, in the obtaining factual matrix has exercised criminal jurisdiction or not. In the case at hand, the writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the recommendation of the Lokayukta. The said recommendation would have led to launching of criminal prosecution, and, as the factual matrix reveals, FIR was registered and criminal investigation was initiated. The learned Single Judge analysed the report and the ultimate recommendation of the statutory authority and thought it seemly to quash the same and after quashing the same, as he found that FIR had been registered, he annulled it treating the same as a natural consequence.Thus, the effort of the writ petitioner was to avoid a criminal investigation and the final order of the writ court is quashment of the registration of FIR and the subsequent investigation. The irresistible conclusion is that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable before the Division Bench and, consequently, the order passed therein is wholly unsustainable and, accordingly, it is set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Lokayukta under the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002. 2. Authenticity and admissibility of electronic evidence (CD). 3. Validity of the Lokayukta's recommendation for FIR registration. 4. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the Single Judge's order. 5. Nature of jurisdiction exercised by the Single Judge (civil or criminal). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Lokayukta under the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002: The Chief Secretary of Haryana referred allegations of bribery and illegal Change of Land Use (CLU) to the Lokayukta under Section 8(1) of the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002. The Lokayukta issued notices and collected evidence, including a contentious CD, and recommended FIR registration under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant challenged this recommendation, asserting that the Lokayukta exceeded its jurisdiction and that the evidence was unauthenticated. 2. Authenticity and Admissibility of Electronic Evidence (CD): The appellant questioned the genuineness of the CD, which was a pivotal piece of evidence. The Lokayukta relied on the CD despite a contradictory forensic report from a private lab. The High Court directed the State to verify the CD's authenticity, resulting in a fresh report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL). The Single Judge found the CD lacked authenticity and could not be relied upon, leading to the quashing of the Lokayukta's recommendation. 3. Validity of the Lokayukta's Recommendation for FIR Registration: The Single Judge held that the Lokayukta's recommendation for FIR registration was flawed due to the lack of authentic evidence. The Single Judge quashed the FIR and subsequent investigation, emphasizing that the Lokayukta's findings were not credible and lacked prima facie proof of corruption. 4. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) Against the Single Judge's Order: The Division Bench admitted the LPA without issuing notice to the appellant and stayed the Single Judge's order. The appellant contended that the LPA was not maintainable as the Single Judge exercised criminal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court analyzed various precedents and concluded that the Single Judge's order, which quashed the FIR and investigation, was indeed under criminal jurisdiction. Therefore, the LPA was not maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, which excludes appeals in criminal matters. 5. Nature of Jurisdiction Exercised by the Single Judge (Civil or Criminal): The Supreme Court emphasized that the nature of the proceeding and the relief sought determine the jurisdiction. Since the Single Judge quashed a criminal investigation and FIR, the jurisdiction exercised was criminal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's Division Bench erred in entertaining the LPA, as it was barred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, which precludes appeals in criminal jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order, ruling that the LPA was not maintainable. The State was granted liberty to challenge the Single Judge's order through appropriate legal channels. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed, with no order as to costs.
|
