9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dge and Special Judge, Katni (hereinafter referred to as learned Special Judge ). 3. The brief factual matrix relating to this appeal is as follows: The respondent no. 2, Shri. Raghav Chandra, who is a Commissioner of M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal along with respondent no. 3, Shri. Shahjad Khan, posted as the then Collector, Katni, Jabalpur and respondent no. 4, Shri. Ram Meshram, posted as the Land Acquisition Officer, M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal, whilst, discharging their functions, had allegedly entered into conspiracy and made a secret plot with Shri. B.D. Gautam, the Director of Olphert Company and, subsequently, purchased the land belonging to Olphert Company at higher rates for the M.P. Housing Board, thereby, caused a financial loss of over `4 Crores to the Government. The appellant reported this alleged transaction of purchase of land by the M.P. Housing Board, alleging financial loss to the Government, to the Lokayukta, Bhopal. Subsequently, the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the Lokayukta Police ) registered an FIR No. 165 of 2002 against accused respondent nos. 2 to 4, as the alleged act or conduct of the accused respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary further action, case be registered in the criminal case diary. 4. Aggrieved by the above observation, respondent nos. 2 to 4 preferred Criminal Revision Petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision petitions and quashed the Order dated 26.4.2005 of the learned Special Judge on the ground that the Order of the learned Special Judge is illegal and without jurisdiction, in view of the decision of this Court in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117, as the Magistrate cannot impinge upon the jurisdiction of the police by directing them to change their opinion when the closure report had been submitted by the police under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. The reliance is also placed on the observation made by this Court in the case of Mansukh Lal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat AIR 1997 SC 3400 wherein it is observed that: 19. Since the validity of Sanction depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority of the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eover, nowhere directs sanctioning authority to do any affirmative action or abstain from doing anything. Therefore, the High Court is not justified in quashing the Order of the learned Special Judge and treating it to be a direction issued to the sanctioning authority to prosecute the accused respondent nos.2 to 4. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Order of the learned Special Judge is in the nature of command and amounts to a direction to the sanctioning authority to prosecute respondent nos. 2 to 4. Therefore, this Order of the learned Special Judge is illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel further supported the impugned Order and Judgment of the High Court. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties before us. The short point in issue before us is based on the nature of the Order passed by the learned Special Judge whether it amounts to a direction issued by the Court to the concerned authority or mere observation of the Court. 11. We will first discuss the nature and scope of the expression direction issued by the Court. This Court in Rameshwar Bhartia v. The State of Assam, 1953 SCR 126 whilst distingu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the direction in general and sweeping terms to sack erring officers (whomsoever they may be) and overhaul the administration by recruiting only conscientious and devoted people like the petitioner in order to satisfy the vanity of the petitioner, should not have been made. If the High Court intends to pass an order on an application presented before it by treating it as a public interest litigation, the High Court must precisely indicate the allegations or the statements contained in such petition relating to public interest litigation and should indicate how public interest was involved and only after ascertaining the correctness of the allegation, should give specific direction as may deem just and proper in the facts of the case. 11. It appears to us that the application was disposed of by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in a lighter vein and the order dated 27-2-1992 is couched in veiled sarcasm. Such course of action, to say the least, is not desirable and the High Court should not have issued mandate in general and sweeping terms which were not intended to be implemented and were not capable of being implemented because of utter vagueness of the mandate a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utionality of a statute, although it is not absolutely necessary to the disposition of the case, if the issue of constitutionality is involved in the suit and its settlement is of public importance. An expression in an opinion which is not necessary to support the decision reached by the court is dictum or obiter dictum. Dictum or obiter dictum: is distinguished from the holding of the court in that the socalled law of the case does not extend to mere dicta, and mere dicta are not binding under the doctrine of stare decisis, As applied to a particular opinion, the question of whether or not a certain part thereof is or is not a mere dictum is sometimes a matter of argument. And while the terms dictum and obiter dictum are generally used synonymously with regard to expressions in an opinion which are not necessary to support the decision, in connection with the doctrine of stare decisis, a distinction has been drawn between mere obiter and judicial dicta, the latter being an expression of opinion on a point deliberately passed upon by the court. (Emphasis supplied). Further at pg. 525 and 526, the effect of dictum has been discussed: 190. Decision on legal poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ull consideration of the point, are not the professed deliberate determinations of the judge himself; obiter dicta are opinions uttered by the way, not upon the point or question pending, as if turning aside for the time from the main topic of the case to collateral subjects; It is mere observation by a judge on a legal question suggested by the case before him, but not arising in such a manner as to require decision by him; Obiter dictum is made as argument or illustration, as pertinent to other cases as to the one on hand, and which may enlighten or convince, but which in no sense are a part of the judgment in the particular issue, not binding as a precedent, but entitled to receive the respect due to the opinion of the judge who utters them; Discussion in an opinion of principles of law which are not pertinent, relevant, or essential to determination of issues before court is obiter dictum 26. The concept of Dicta has also been considered in Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 21, at pg. 309-12 as thus: 190. Dicta a. In General A Dictum is an opinion expressed by a court, but which, not being necessarily involved in the case, lacks the force of an adjudication; an opinion e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing. 28. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101 and Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty, (2003) 7 SCC 197, this Court has observed that Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all. Not every passing expression of a judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement, having the weight of authority. 29. In State of Haryana v. Ranbir, (2006) 5 SCC 167, this Court has discussed the concept of the obiter dictum thus: A decision, it is well settled, is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. The distinction between a dicta and obiter is well known. Obiter dicta is more or less presumably unnecessary to the decision. It may be an expression of a viewpoint or sentiments which has no binding effect. See ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla. It is also well settled that the statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi constitute obiter dicta and are not authoritative. (See Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty) 30. In Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555, this Court has held: Thus, observations of the Court did not relate to any of the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the nature of Obiter Dictum or mere passing remark made by the learned Special Judge, which only amounts to expression of his personal view. Therefore, this portion of the Order dealing with Challan proceeding, is neither relevant, pertinent nor essential, while deciding the actual issues which were before the learned Special Judge and hence, cannot be treated as the part of the Judgment of the learned Special Judge. 33. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that, the portion of the Order of the learned Special Judge which deals with the Challan proceedings is a mere observation or remark made by way of aside. In view of this, the High Court had grossly erred in considering and treating this mere observation of the learned Special Judge as the direction of the Court. Therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the Order of the learned Special Judge. 34. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned Order and Judgment of the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 821 of 2005, Criminal Revision Petition No. 966 of 2005 and Criminal Case No. 3403 of 2005 dated 22.4.2009 is set aside. We restore the Order of the learned Spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
