2018 (4) TMI 3 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Inherent power of a High Court available to stay a trial under the Act - whether order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order - instance of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) against the appellant and certain officers of MCD alleging causing of wrongful loss to the MCD by using fake invoices of Oil Companies relating to transportation of Bitumen for use in Dense Carpeting Works of roads in Delhi during the year 1997 and 1998 Held that - A Bench of three Judges in Madhu Limaye (1977 (10) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT) held that legislature has sought to check delay in final disposal of proceedings in criminal cases by way of a bar to revisional jurisdiction against an interlocutory order under sub-Section 2 of Section 397 Cr.P.C. At the same time, inherent power of the High Court is not limited or affected by any other provision. It could not mean that limitation on exercise of revisional power is to be set at naught. Inherent power could be used for securing ends of justice or to check abuse of the process of the Court. This power has to be exercised very sparingly against a proceeding initiated illegally or vexatiously or without jurisdiction. The label of the petition is immaterial. Situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced. We declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re appreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period. Though no mandatory time limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed two-three months normally. If it remains pending longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months, unless extension is granted by a specific speaking order, as already indicated. Mandate of speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as other cases where at trial stage proceedings are stayed by the higher court i.e. the High Court or a court below the High Court, as the case may be. The High Courts may also issue instructions to this effect and monitor the same so that civil or criminal proceedings do not remain pending for unduly period at the trial stage. The question referred stands answered. The matter along with other connected matters, may now be listed before an appropriate Bench as first matter, subject to overnight part-heard, on Wednesday, the 18th April, 2018.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an order framing charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order.
2. Whether the bar on revision under Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act also bars the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
3. Whether an order framing charge can be challenged under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interlocutory Order:
- The Supreme Court addressed whether an order framing charge is an interlocutory order. It was concluded that such an order is not purely interlocutory nor a final order. The Court referred to the principles laid down in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that an order framing charge may not be purely interlocutory and can be interfered with under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution in exceptional situations. The High Court's jurisdiction to consider challenges against an order framing charge is not barred, but such jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in rarest of rare cases to correct a patent error of jurisdiction.

2. Bar on Revision and Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
- The Court examined whether the bar under Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act extends to the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not limited by Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. This power can be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. However, such power should be exercised very sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The judgment in Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, which suggested a blanket ban on stay of trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, was overruled.

3. Challenge under Article 226/227:
- The Supreme Court clarified that the High Courts' power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution forms part of the basic structure and cannot be barred. However, this power should be exercised with caution and only in rare and exceptional circumstances. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent of expeditious trial in corruption cases must be respected, and any stay of proceedings should be limited in duration and granted only in exceptional cases with a speaking order.

Additional Observations:
- The Court highlighted the need for speedy trials in corruption cases and the adverse impact of delays on the administration of justice. It directed that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings is operating, the stay will lapse after six months unless extended by a speaking order. The trial courts are to resume proceedings on expiry of the stay unless an extension order is produced.

Conclusion:
- The Supreme Court declared that orders framing charges are not purely interlocutory and can be challenged under Sections 397(2), 482 Cr.P.C., or Article 227 of the Constitution in exceptional cases. The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. remains available but should be exercised sparingly. The High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure and cannot be barred, but should be used cautiously. The Court directed that stays should not exceed six months unless extended by a speaking order, ensuring that trials proceed expeditiously.