9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein the complainant was residing along with Smt. Indramma accused No. 2 and informed the complainant that he has married her and then not only both started living there but also threw out the complainant from his house. As such while the marriage of the complainant with accused No. 1 was subsisting, his (accused No. 1) marriage with the 2nd accused amounts to bigamy and hence the complaint. 3. After taking cognizance against three accused and after recording the evidence, the learned Magistrate by the order dated 11.7.2001 though acquitted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 494 r/w 34 IPC, however awarded a compensation of ₹ 10,000/- to be paid by accused No. l to the complainant within one month from the date of order. It is this part of the order viz., awarding compensation inspite of acquittal by the Trial Court, the present revision petition is filed. 4. From the impugned order, it appears that even though the Trial Court felt that the complainant has failed to prove the case of commission of offence under Section 494 r/w 34 IPC, the award of compensation was just and proper in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts within the territory of India. From a bare reading of Article 141 of the Constitution, what is to be noted is that the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts within the territory of India. The emphasis has to be laid down on the words 'the law declared'. It is well settled that it is only 'the law declared' and not the result, which is having binding precedent. 10. In this regard it is noted that in the case of PRAKASH CHANDRA V. STATE OF U.P., AIR 1969 SC 195, the Apex Court has observed thus: Decisions even of the highest Court on questions which are essentially questions of fact, cannot be cited as precedents governing the decision of other cases which must rest in the ultimate analysis upon their own particular facts. Similarly in the case of AMRITSAR MUNICIPALITY V. NAZARA SINGH it is observed that even though obiter dictum of the Supreme Court should be accepted as binding precedent, but statements on matters other than law have no binding force since on facts no two cases are similar. The Supreme Court's decisions, which are essentially on questions of fact, cannot be relied upon as precedents for decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. Similarly in the case of DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC V. MAHADEVA SHETTY, the Apex Court has observed thus: The decision ordinarily is a decision on the case before the Court, while the principle underlying the decision would be binding as a precedent in a case which comes up for decision subsequently. Therefore, while applying the decision to a later case, the Court dealing with it should carefully try to ascertain the principle laid down by the previous decision. A decision often takes its colour from the question involved in the case in which it is rendered. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. The only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided. Statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is law of the land, has binding force on all other Courts in the Country, it is only the law declared which would be binding on other Courts. Hence, in our view, so far as the pronouncements of the Apex Court in the criminal cases especially like in respect of sentence, amount of compensation, etc. are concerned, normally they do not have any binding force on other Courts except being considered as guidelines or guiding principles. 15. Coming to the facts of the present case as well as to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in LAXMIDEVI'S case and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. TARAMANI's case, we have to note that in LAXMIDEVI's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court though upheld the judgment of acquittal of a husband for the offence under Section 494 IPC,. on the ground of absence of proof of essential ceremonies like sapthapadhi, the factum of second marriage was held not proved. However, on finding that though the first wife Laxmidevi was unable to prove the factum of second marriage but,, still had led sufficient evidence to disclose that her husband/respondent/Satyanaray ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation, akin to the case of LAXMIDEVI is found, it is open for the Courts to award compensation, hastening to add that it is not a universal principle to be invoked in each and every case whereever the accused is acquitted of an offence under Section 494 IPC, but still to be fastened with liability of paying compensation. 19. Considering all these aspects, we answer the reference as follows: 1) The order of the Apex Court in the case of LAXMIDEVI's case (supra) of awarding compensation to a wife, who has failed to establish the second marriage, has no effect of binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India as the same has been exercised by the Apex Court exercising special power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and same holds good to the decision in the case of Smt. TARAMANI; and 2) The High Courts or the Sub-ordinate Courts have no such power to award compensation, even by applying pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in LAXMIDEVI's case as binding precedent. 20. As such, on going through the impugned judgment as we find that the learned Magistrate has not all considered this aspect, his applying the decision of this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
