1999 (5) TMI 628 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to impose exemplary costs in criminal cases.
2. Interpretation of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) regarding inherent powers.
3. Applicability of specific provisions of the CrPC for awarding costs.
4. Examination of previous case laws and principles of statutory interpretation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Impose Exemplary Costs in Criminal Cases:
The primary issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to impose exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000 on each appellant while rejecting a frivolous or vexatious petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. The appellants argued that the High Court lacked such jurisdiction except as provided under Sections 148(3), 342, and 359 of the CrPC. The respondents contended that the High Court had inherent jurisdiction to impose costs to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

2. Interpretation of Section 482 of the CrPC Regarding Inherent Powers:
Section 482 of the CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make necessary orders to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice. The Court held that this section stands independently and is not limited or affected by other provisions of the CrPC. The inherent powers include the authority to impose costs, which can be exemplary, to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice.

3. Applicability of Specific Provisions of the CrPC for Awarding Costs:
The Court examined Sections 148(3), 342, 357, and 359 of the CrPC, which provide specific instances where costs can be awarded. It was argued that these provisions do not preclude the High Court from exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 to award costs in appropriate cases. The Court noted that while these sections provide for costs in certain cases, they do not explicitly prohibit the High Court from awarding costs in other cases under its inherent powers.

4. Examination of Previous Case Laws and Principles of Statutory Interpretation:
The Court referred to several previous decisions to support its interpretation of Section 482. In "State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Aggarwal," it was held that inherent powers could not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with specific provisions of the CrPC. However, the Court distinguished this case by emphasizing that Section 482 allows for the exercise of inherent powers where no specific provision exists or where such exercise is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice.

In "Dr. Raghubir Sharan v. The State of Bihar," the Court recognized the inherent powers of the High Court to expunge remarks made against a medical practitioner, highlighting that such powers are necessary for securing the ends of justice. Similarly, in "Pampathy v. State of Mysore," the Court acknowledged that inherent powers are essential for the proper discharge of judicial duties, especially in cases not covered by specific statutory provisions.

The Court also addressed the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another), noting that its application should be limited and should not lead to inconsistency or injustice. The Court emphasized that inherent powers should be exercised judiciously and only in extraordinary circumstances to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to impose costs, including exemplary costs, in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. This power is independent of other provisions of the CrPC and should be exercised judiciously in exceptional circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's order imposing costs on the appellants.