9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (12) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) In revision, the main question raised was whether under S. 209 (i), Criminal P. C., when a Magistrate finds that there are not sufficient grounds for committing the accused for trial and directs such persons to be tried before himself, the revisional powers under S. 437 can be exercised evern before the conclusion of the trial before such Magistrate. Chandra Reddy J., who admitted the revision directed the same to be posted before a Division Bench as it was represented to him that a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court covering the point required re-consideration. The Revision Petition was accordingly posted before a Division Bench. The respondent relied upon the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in -'Nalla Baligadu In re', (FB) (A), wherein it was ruled that the powers under S. 437, Crimina; P. C. can be exercised ever before the conclusion of the trial before the Magistrate. If the Full Bench deicison of the Madras High Court was binding on this Court, it would follow that the Revision Petition was liable to be dismissed. In the circumstances, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Andhra High Court would not be bound by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act passed from time to time by the Parliament of England. When India became a Dominion by virtue of the Indian Independence Act of 1947 which took effect on 15.8.1947, there was no change in the constitution of the High Court. When India became a Republic, the jurisdiction and powers of the Madras High Court were regulated by the Constitution of India, which came into force on 26.1.1950. The former High Courts were continued in respect of the respective States. Under Art. 225, subject to the provisions of the Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that legislature by the Constitution, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, an existing High Court, and the respective powers of the Judges thereof in relation to the adminsitration of Justice in the Court was declared to be the same as immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. In some directions, additional powers were also conferred. (6) The Parliament, by passing Act 30 of 1953, constituted the Andhra State, which came into effect on 1.10.1953. Under S. 28 of the said Act, it was provided that there shall be a separate High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Andhra High Courts have the same jurisdiction subject to some exceptions with which we are not concerned now, over the area comprised in the two different States. The composite High Court, which was His Majesty's Court, before the Constitution, became one governed by the Constitution. For a short period, the same High Court exercised jurisdiction over the two States. after 5.7.1954, two different Courts came into existence. The same procedure governing the Madras High Court continued to govern the Andhra High Court till it was modified in accordance with law. The splitting up of territorial jurisdiction had not the effect of changing the law obtaining in the respective territories. The Andhra High Court is therefore, in a real sense an offshoot of the Madras High Court exercising the same jurisdiction and administering the same laws, which the Madras High Court had exercised before 5.7.1954 in the territories included in the Andhra State. To use a convenient terminology, the Andhra High Court may be treated an one succeeding to the High Court of Madras and exercising all the powers and administering the same law which the Madras High Court exercised in the territories comprise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The question whether the Rangoon High Court in exercise of its ordinary original and appellate jurisdiction was not bound by the reports of decisions of the Chief Court of Lower Burma was raised and decided by the Full Bench of the Rangoon High Court in -'Ma Mya v. Ma Thein', AIR 1927 Rang 4 (D). The Full Bench Cunliffe J. disenting, held that the High Court was not bound by the said reports. The decision turned upon the question whether the Chief Court of Lower, Burma, which was replaced by the High Court, which had territorial jurisdiction not only in respect of lower Burma but also upper Burma, was a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. Rutledge C. J. held that to decide whether the decisions of the late Chief Court are binding upon this Courts, we must decide whether it is a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. (10) A Division Bench of the Travancore Cochin High Court in -'Unni Kunchu Moldeen v. Subramonia, Iyer', AIR 1953 Trav-C 283 (E) had to consider whether the decisions of the former Travancore and Cochin High Court were binding on the post-Constitution High Courts of Travancore-Cochin. The Full Bench disposed of the question with the observation that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction of several different tribunals, both authorised to deal with the same subject-matter at the choice of the suitor. But no definition is given of co-ordinate jurisdiction in any of the Law Dictionaries. In Chamber's Twentith Century Dictionary (Mid-Century Version), the meaning of the word co-ordinate is given as of the same order or rank . Roget in Thesauras of English Words and Phrases gives that word under the heading 'comparative quantity. According to the author, it connotes an idea of sameness of quantity or degree. It is, therefore, clear that the connotation of the word co-ordination is not the same as that of the words concurrence or simultaneity. Simultaneity or co-existence is not a necessary ingredient of co-ordination. Co-ordination is more comprehensive and takes in successive acts of the same status or level. It would not be inappropriate to call a successor Court a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, with its predecessor if their jurisdictions at the point of time they exercised it are similar to or co-extensive with each other. The cases cited at the Bar amply show that the said word was understood in the wider sense indicated by me. If it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the argument that the simultaneous exercise of jurisdiction by two Courts is a necessary condition for the application of the doctrine of co-ordinate jurisdiction. I do not think that the learned Lord meant to make any such distinction. He only pointed out the practice followed by the Court of Appeal in dealing with the earlier decisions of the old Court of Appeal in Chancery, Nor can the decision of the Division Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court be legitimately invoked by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention. There, if I may say so, the learned Judge rightly assumed that the High Courts of Travancoore and Cochin, which exercised only jurisdiction over small areas were not Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction with the High Court of Travancore-Cochin. This was not on the principle that the earlier Courts were not exercising jurisdiction simultaneously with the present High Court, but because of the fact that their jurisdiction was not co-extensive with that of the present High Court. (14) In AIR 1952 Madh B 171 (FB) (F). Chaturvedi J., Who delivered the judgment, based his conclusion on the following principle : It is true that thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n over the entire composite State. After the constitution of the Andhra High Court the composite High Court exercised jurisdiction over the territories of the two States. After the inauguration of the Andhra High Court, the jurisdiction was split up an two High Courts are now exercising jurisdiction separately over the two States. The jurisdiction exercised by the Madras High Court over the composite State till 1.10.1953 and over the two States from 1.10.1953 to 5.7.1954 was co-extensive with the present jurisdiction exercised by the Andhra High Court in all respects except in regard to territorial jurisdiction. The content of the jurisdiction exercised by the Madras High Court and the present Andhra High Court is the same, though the area over which the said jurisdiction is exercised is now limited in the case of both the Courts. If the Andhra High Court is not a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, it could reasonably be argued that the present Madras High Court is also not a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction with its predecessor, the composite High Court, or, at any rate with the Madras High Court before the Constitution. I would, therefore, apply the following test to ascertain w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision, though founded in error, shall stand inviolate none the less Communis error facit jus . It is better , said Lord Eldon, that the law should be certain than that every Judge shall speculate upon improvements in it . (20) There is no reason why the aforesaid salutary principle should not be followed in the case of decisions delivered by the Madras High Court when the Andhra area was under its jurisdiction. During that period, titles were settled transactions took place, settlements made, agreements entered into, wills executed and expectations raised on the basis of the decisions of the Madras High Court. If the Andhra High Court is now free to start from scratch, it would be introducing confusion in the law of the land and disturbing titles acquired. It would also become a fruitful source of litigation. Further the Madras High Court has had long and well-established traditions and was presided over by some of the Distinguished Judges of our land. This High Court would do well in its own interests and that of the Public to continue the great and abiding traditions laid down by the Madras High Court for generation and to be inspired by its noble examples. (21) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act provides for the formation of the Andhra State and the transfer of territory from Madras to Mysore. A combined reading of the two provisions can only mean that the change of territories provided for by Part II of the Act will not make any change in the law obtaining in that territory before the change. till otherwise provided by a competent Legislature. If there was a law obtaining in the Andhra area before the Constitution of the Andhra State to the effect that the Madras High Court decisions would be binding on the Andhra High Court, this provision can legitimately be involved. But obviously there could not have been any such law, for the simple reason that there was no High Court of Andhra in existence prior to its constitution. On this simple ground, this contention should be negatived. (27) I shall now consider the procedure to be followed by this High Court in dealing with decisions of the Madras High Court prior to 5.7.1954. The general principle is that this High Court shall follow the decisions of the Madras High Court prior to the said date in same manner in which the Madras High Court would follow its own decisions. The conditions when a Court can differ from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of another Judge of the same Court. If he does not agree, the proper course for him is to refer the case to a Bench of two Judges. If this procedure is followed from the beginning, there will not be any confusion created by conflict of decisions. The public will know their rights and the Subordinate Courts will be in a position to administer the settled law without any difficulty. I hope and trust that in the interests of the smooth and efficient judicial administration of the State, this High Court will in future follow strictly the aforesaid procedure without any deviation. (29) As the Full bench Decision of the Madras High Court covers the exact point raised in the present case, we follow it and dismiss the revision petition. Bhimasankaram, J. (30) I am of the same opinion, but I would like to add a few words of my own particularly because my learned brother Umamaheswaram J., has taken the opposite view (Vide (S) (B) ). I propose to approach the consideration of the matter by propounding two questions (1) Is there a rule of law, statutory or otherwise, which makes it obligatory on this Court to follow the precedents in question ? (2) Even if there is no such rule, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the citizens of that new State that the new Court should follow either the Travancore or the Cochin Judge-made law. The decision therefore, in AIR 1952 Trav-C 283 (E) seems to me unexceptionable. Again, where small territorial units are integrated to form a new State, and a new and independent High Court is established with jurisdiction over the whole State without reference to the jurisdiction of the previous local Courts as is the case with Madhya Bharat, according to the Chief Justice of that Court, the new Court may have no precedents of a parent Court to follow, or would have to apply the precedents of a former Court with a narrower territorial jurisdiction. In such cases, the Court cannot help starting with a clean state. In breaking new ground therefore, it would not be disappointing any natural expectations on the part of the people as to established rules of law. The view taken in AIR 1952 Madh-B 171 (FB) (F) may with respect be considered right. On the other hand, where territories under the jurisdiction of one High Court are divided into two, each to be under the jurisdiction of a separate High Court, it seems to me that the principle underlying the rule of prece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tuted under a different authority ; indeed, a foreign authority -the Parliament of England. That analogy has no application to the relationship between the composite High Court and this Court. It seems to me, therefore, that there are absolutely no reasons whatsoever why the wholesome rule to stand by matters decided and not to stir up points set at rest should not apply to our High Court so far as the decisions of the Madras High Court before 5.7.1954 ae concerned. No section of the litigant public can complain if we are following established rule, since there is no part of our territorial jurisdiction which was not under the old Madras High Court. (33) As regards the first question which I raised, I am content to adopt the reasoning of My Lord the Chief Justice. I respectfully agree with him that this Court is a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction in relation to the old Madras High Court. There is one minor point to which reference must however be made. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there may be cases where decisions rendered by Madras High Court before 5.7.1954 may be overruled by the Madras High Court itself, but which in the above view may none the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
