2001 (9) TMI 1173 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative prohibition on staying proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Interpretation of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The impact of stays on the prosecution of public servants for corruption.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legislative Prohibition on Staying Proceedings:

The judgment emphasizes that Parliament imposed an undiluted ban against granting stays of any proceedings involving an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This ban is absolute and no court shall circumvent it by any means. The legislative intent was to expedite proceedings and prevent delays caused by parties raising questions before the High Court during trial proceedings. The prohibition is articulated in Section 19(3) of the Act, which includes three clauses, all prefaced by "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973," indicating that none of the provisions in the Code can be invoked to circumvent the bans enumerated.

2. Interpretation of the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court:

The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code was argued to be distinct from its revisional jurisdiction. However, the judgment clarifies that Section 19(3)(c) of the Act explicitly prohibits any court from staying proceedings under the Act on any ground. This prohibition applies even when a court is exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judgment further notes that Section 482 starts with "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code," implying that inherent power can be exercised even if there is a contrary provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, but not if there is a specific bar in another enactment. Therefore, the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to get over the legislative bar in the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. Impact of Stays on Prosecution of Public Servants:

The judgment highlights the adverse effects of granting stays on the prosecution of public servants for corruption. The practice of obtaining stays through revisions or petitions under the Criminal Procedure Code has led to significant delays in trials, undermining efforts to combat corruption. The judgment underscores the necessity of reiterating the law to prevent such delays and ensure that trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act proceed without interruption. The court directs that trials should be taken up on a day-to-day basis and concluded expeditiously.

Conclusion and Directions:

The judgment concludes that there can be no stay of trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act. While proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be entertained, they cannot result in a stay of the trial. The court directs the Registrars of all High Courts to list cases where stays have been granted in contravention of the Act, so that appropriate action can be taken. The trial in the present case is ordered to be concluded within six months, and the appeal is dismissed without addressing the merits of the case.