9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 1110 - SC - Indian LawsLocus standi of appellant, M.R. Ajayan, to prefer this SLP against the impugned order - proceedings in question to be hit by the bar under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. or not - Correctness of de novo steps to be taken against the appellant. Whether M.R. Ajayan, appellant in SLP(Crl.)No.4887 of 2024 has the locus standi to prefer this SLP against the impugned order? - HELD THAT - The locus of a private individual seeking the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is no longer res integra. This Court in National Commission for Women 2010 (7) TMI 1131 - SUPREME COURT has observed that an appeal by a private individual can be entertained, both sparingly and after due vigilance, following the exposition of law in Arunachalam 1980 (2) TMI 271 - SUPREME COURT . Furthermore, in Amanuallah 2016 (4) TMI 1474 - SUPREME COURT , this Court dealt with this issue in detail and observed ' From the material placed on record, it is clear that the appellants have precise connection with the matter at hand and thus, have locus to maintain this appeal.' More recently, similar to the case at hand, in Naveen Singh v. State of U.P. (2- Judge Bench) 2021 (3) TMI 1466 - SUPREME COURT , while considering the locus of the Petitioner therein, this Court observed that since the allegations concerned tampering with the order of the Court, hence locus is not that important but, in fact, insignificant with the State not carrying forward the matter any further. The locus standi of the appellant in SLP(Crl.)No.4887 of 2024, does not come in the way of this Court hearing the same. The case at hand, which has been quashed by the High Court, involves serious allegations of interference with judicial processes which strike at the very foundation of both dispensation and the administration of justice. Therefore, the first issue is answered in the affirmative as it is incumbent upon this Court to check the correctness of the approach adopted by the High Court, and the locus of the appellant would not come in the way of the same. Whether the High Court has rightly held the proceedings in question to be hit by the bar under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.? - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the High Court, on the basis of the above bar on taking cognizance, has quashed the order taking cognizance and proceedings emanating therefrom. This approach was not correct - On a perusal of the FIR, it is clear that based on the letter issued by the Kerala High Court dated 27th September, 1994 and by the District Judge, Trivandrum, the offence was registered against the accused persons. The criminal proceedings clearly do not arise from a complaint by a private individual. The initiation of the present proceedings in the present case, was from the judgment and order dated 5thFebruary, 1991 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1991, in acquitting Andrew Salvatore directing the matter of planting of Mo2 be positively looked into. This was followed by an investigation by the vigilance officer of the Court. Therefore, in the impugned order, the High Court has erroneously observed that there is no judicial order concerning the present proceedings. There is no distinction between a judicial or administrative order by a Court to which that Court is subordinate - the question is answered in the negative. Independent of the above, whether the High Court could have ordered de novo steps to be taken against the appellant? - HELD THAT - Reference made to the judgment of this Court in Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar Anr. (2-Judge Bench) 2024 (5) TMI 1489 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it was stated ' An Appellate Court has got ample power to direct re-trial. However, such a power is to be exercised in exceptional cases. The irregularities found must be so material that a re-trial is the only option. In other words, the failure to follow the mandate of law must cause a serious prejudice vitiating the entire trial, which cannot be cured otherwise, except by way of a re-trial. Once such a re-trial is ordered, the effect is that all the proceedings recorded by the Court would get obliterated leading to a fresh trial, which is inclusive of the examination of witnesses.' Applying the above principles to the case at hand, the alleged forgery of evidence in a criminal investigation has resulted in acquittal in the NDPS case and, thereafter, an FIR has been registered, in the circumstance referred to hereinbefore. But then, the interference by the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings was unwarranted. In view of the above the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of M.R. Ajayan to prefer the SLP. 2. Applicability of the bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. 3. Authority of the High Court to order de novo steps against the appellant. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Locus Standi of M.R. Ajayan: The first issue concerns whether M.R. Ajayan, the appellant in SLP(Crl.)No.4887 of 2024, has the locus standi to file the SLP against the High Court's order. Ajayan claims to be a socially spirited person and editor of "Green Kerela News," and had previously intervened in the High Court proceedings resisting the quashing petition. The respondent, Antony Raju, objected to Ajayan's locus, arguing that third parties cannot appeal in criminal proceedings, citing precedents like P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi. However, the Supreme Court noted that locus standi in criminal matters can be relaxed when substantial justice is at stake, especially when the State fails to act. The Court emphasized that Ajayan's appeal involves serious allegations of judicial interference, thus affirming his locus standi. 2. Bar Under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.: The second issue addresses whether the High Court correctly applied the bar under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., which restricts court cognizance of certain offenses without a complaint from the concerned court. The High Court quashed the proceedings based on this bar, asserting that the final report was filed following an administrative order, not a judicial one. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the proceedings originated from a judicial order dated 5th February 1991, where the Kerala High Court highlighted the possibility of evidence tampering. The Supreme Court clarified that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) does not apply when proceedings are initiated by a superior court's direction, as seen in precedents like Sivamani. The Court concluded that the High Court's reasoning was flawed, as the alleged interference with judicial processes warranted public interest and justified the continuation of proceedings. 3. De Novo Steps Ordered by the High Court: The third issue involves whether the High Court could order de novo steps against the appellant, Antony Raju. The Supreme Court evaluated this in light of the principles governing retrials, as outlined in cases like Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab. Retrials are permissible in exceptional circumstances to prevent miscarriages of justice, such as jurisdictional errors or procedural irregularities. The Court found that the alleged forgery of evidence in the NDPS case justified a retrial, as it impacted the integrity of judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to order de novo steps, emphasizing the need for a fair trial. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the proceedings and restored the order taking cognizance in Crime No.215/1994 and all subsequent proceedings. The trial was directed to conclude within one year, with the accused required to appear before the Trial Court on 20th December 2024. The appeal by M.R. Ajayan was allowed, while Antony Raju's appeal was dismissed.
|
