9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 371 - HC - Money LaunderingWhether the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order dated 29th August 2019 exercised the power only under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or under Articles 226 and 227 as well as under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.? HELD THAT - Section 362 of Cr.P.C could not have come in the way of the learned Single Judge in considering the prayer made by the writ petitioners for continuation of the interim relief which was operating in the writ petitions. Even assuming that the learned Single Judge had exercised the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C as well, what Section 362 of Cr.P.C prohibits is that the alteration of order except to the extent of correcting clerical and arithmetical errors. What was prayed for by the petitioners was the continuation of interim relief which was operative till the disposal of the writ petitions. There was no warrant for the learned Single Judge to have taken recourse to Section 362 of Cr.P.C and even to refuse to consider the prayer for continuation of interim relief. There cannot be any dispute that if an order which is sought to be challenged by way of an appeal under Section 4 of the High Court Act is made in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, an appeal under Section 4 of the High Court Act will not be maintainable as the order cannot be said to have been passed in exercise of the original jurisdiction. In a given case, in one petition, the powers of the learned Single Judge both in Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in Section 482 of Cr.P.C can be invoked depending upon the facts of the case and prayers made in the case. It is quite possible that in a given case, the learned Single Judge exercises the powers both under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In such a case, an appeal under Section 4 of the High Court Act will not be maintainable because the exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be separated - In the present appeals, the entire emphasis of the appellants is on the fact that the judgment delivered in the writ petitions dated 29th August 2019 shows that the learned Single Judge exercised the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. While deciding the issue which power was exercised by the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order dated 29th August 2019, what the learned Single Judge has observed cannot be ignored altogether, especially when the writ petitions filed by the appellants indicate that the jurisdiction of the Court was invoked under all the three provisions and the prayer clause (e) also indicates that apart from invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even the prayer for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the offence registered under the said Act of 2002 was made. In the order dated 30th August 2019 impugned in these three appeals, the learned Single Judge has himself stated that while passing the judgment and order dated 29th August 2019, he also exercised the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C as well. There is no reason to discard or disbelieve what he has said - Thus, while passing the order dated 29th August 2019, he has also exercised the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India versus Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 2. Maintainability of appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. 3. Application of Section 362 of Cr.P.C in the context of continuation of interim relief. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge The primary issue was whether the learned Single Judge exercised jurisdiction solely under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or also under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The appellants argued that the judgment dated 29th August 2019 was passed under Articles 226 and 227, as indicated by various paragraphs within the judgment. They contended that the reference to Section 482 of Cr.P.C in the writ petitions was merely formal and did not imply that the jurisdiction under Section 482 was invoked. Conversely, the Enforcement Directorate argued that the learned Single Judge did exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, as evidenced by the prayer for quashing proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and specific paragraphs in the judgment. The court concluded that the learned Single Judge had indeed exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, in addition to Articles 226 and 227, as indicated by the prayer clause (e) and the judge's own observations. Issue 2: Maintainability of Appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 Section 4 of the High Court Act allows appeals from decisions of a single Judge in the exercise of original jurisdiction. The court noted that if the order was passed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, an appeal under Section 4 would not be maintainable. The appellants emphasized that the judgment was under Articles 226 and 227, making the appeal maintainable. However, the court found that the learned Single Judge exercised power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C as well, based on the combined prayer for quashing proceedings and summons, and the judge's explicit statements. Issue 3: Application of Section 362 of Cr.P.C The appellants argued that Section 362 of Cr.P.C, which prohibits alteration of orders except for clerical errors, should not have barred the learned Single Judge from considering the continuation of interim relief. The court agreed, stating that Section 362 should not have prevented the judge from addressing the interim relief request. However, this did not affect the overall conclusion regarding the jurisdiction exercised. Conclusion The court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the learned Single Judge had exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in addition to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act were not maintainable. The court also noted that Section 362 of Cr.P.C should not have been a barrier to considering interim relief but upheld the overall judgment and order dated 29th August 2019.
|
