9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1354 - SC - Indian LawsConstitutional Validity of Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 - violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - Rule 6 of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - HELD THAT - It is well known practice that generally a revision against conviction and sentence is filed after an appeal is dismissed and the convicted person is taken into custody in Court itself. The object of the Rule is to ensure that a person who has been convicted by two courts obeys the law and does not abscond. The provision cannot thus be held to be arbitrary in any manner. The provision is to regulate the procedure of the Court and does not, in any manner, conflict with the substantive provisions of the Cr.P.C. relied upon by the petitioners. There are no merit in the challenge to the validity of the Rule. It is well known practice that generally a revision against conviction and sentence is filed after an appeal is dismissed and the convicted person is taken into custody in Court itself. The object of the Rule is to ensure that a person who has been convicted by two courts obeys the law and does not abscond. The provision cannot thus be held to be arbitrary in any manner. The provision is to regulate the procedure of the Court and does not, in any manner, conflict with the substantive provisions of the Cr.P.C. relied upon by the petitioners. It has not been disputed even by the learned counsel for the High Court that the Rule does not affect the inherent power of the High Court to exempt the requirement of surrender in exceptional situations. It cannot thus, be argued that prohibition against posting of a revision petition for admission applies even to a situation where on an application of the petitioner, on a case being made out, the Court, in exercise of its inherent power, considers it appropriate to grant exemption from surrender having regard to the nature and circumstances of a case. There are no ground to hold that the impugned Rule suffers from any infirmity - petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to the validity of Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to the Validity of Rule 159 The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. They argued that the rule, which requires surrender to custody before registering a revision petition against conviction and sentence, is in conflict with the statutory revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitioners contended that the rule violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. The High Court upheld the validity of the rule, stating that it is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or illegal. The Supreme Court considered previous judgments and observed that the rule aims to ensure that convicted individuals obey the law and do not abscond. The Court found no merit in the challenge to the rule's validity, emphasizing that it regulates court procedure and does not conflict with substantive provisions of the Cr.P.C. The Court cited similar provisions in the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and previous judgments to support its decision. Issue 2: Comparison with Supreme Court Rules The Court compared Rule 159 with similar provisions in the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and highlighted past judgments that supported the requirement of surrender before registering a revision petition. The Court noted that the rules in question are in aid of the powers of the respective courts and are based on sound principles to ensure compliance with the law and prevent absconding. The Court emphasized the importance of surrender as a condition precedent for hearing a case, even when the sentence has been suspended by the Governor. The judgments cited underscored the necessity of surrender for the proper functioning of the judicial process. Issue 3: Inherent Power of the Court The petitioners argued that the impugned rule restricts the inherent power of the High Court to exempt surrender in exceptional cases. The Court clarified that the rule does not affect the High Court's inherent power to exempt surrender when deemed necessary. The Court pointed out that the rule does not prevent the court from granting exemption from surrender based on the nature and circumstances of a case. The Court highlighted the importance of considering each provision, including the Cr.P.C. and the Supreme Court Rules, independently and based on their own standing. The absence of an explicit exception in the impugned rule regarding exemption from surrender does not preclude the court from exercising its inherent power in appropriate situations. Conclusion: After considering the arguments, previous judgments, and the purpose of the rule, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001. The Court affirmed the importance of surrender before registering a revision petition against conviction and sentence, emphasizing its role in maintaining law and order and ensuring the proper functioning of the judicial system.
|
