9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against quashing of charges under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC based on inadmissible evidence. Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere in second revision. Exercise of discretionary powers by the Supreme Court. Analysis: The appeal before the Supreme Court was against the High Court's decision to quash charges framed by a Special Judge under various Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The High Court had directed the Special Judge to reconsider the matter excluding inadmissible evidence. The appellant contended that the second revision filed by the respondent was not maintainable as it amounted to a review of the previous judgment, citing the precedent set in State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Aggarwala. However, the Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court's adherence to a recent decision regarding the admissibility of certain statements, even if the order may have been wrong or without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court exercised discretionary powers and upheld the High Court's judgment, considering it just and in line with promoting the ends of justice. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of, and the High Court's decision was upheld. The primary issue in the case was the admissibility of evidence in framing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The respondent had raised concerns that the charges were based on statements obtained under duress or inducement, which were inadmissible. The High Court, in its order, directed the exclusion of such statements and instructed the Special Judge to decide the matter afresh after excluding vitiated evidence. This decision was based on the recent ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of statements obtained under certain conditions. The High Court's order aimed to ensure a fair trial by excluding tainted evidence and allowing for a fresh consideration of the case. Another issue raised in the appeal was the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in a second revision filed by the respondent. The appellant argued that the second revision amounted to a review of the previous judgment, which was impermissible. Citing the precedent in State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Aggarwala, the appellant contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to alter its previous judgment once signed. However, the Supreme Court, while acknowledging the technicality of the issue, exercised discretionary powers and refrained from interfering with the High Court's order. The Supreme Court considered the High Court's decision as aligned with the recent legal position and conducive to the ends of justice, leading to the upholding of the High Court's judgment. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the charges and remand the case for reconsideration excluding inadmissible evidence. Despite the technical argument regarding the maintainability of the second revision, the Supreme Court exercised discretionary powers and declined to set aside the High Court's order. The decision was based on promoting fairness and justice in the trial process, ultimately leading to the disposal of the appeal in favor of upholding the High Court's judgment.
|
