9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter, we find that neither the State which is the complainant nor the heirs of the deceased have chosen to file a petition in the HC. As this responsibility has been taken up by the Commission at its own volition this is clearly not permissible following the decision in case of P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalm And Another [ 1980 (2) TMI 271 - SUPREME COURT] . We are unable to comprehend as to how the Commission was entitled to maintain an appeal in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court. An appeal is a creature of a Statute and cannot lie under any inherent power. This Court does undoubtedly grant leave to the appeal under the discretionary power conferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India at the behest of the State or an affected private individual but to permit anybody or an organization pro-bono publico to file an appeal would be a dangerous doctrine and would cause utter confusion in the criminal justice system. We are ,therefore, of the opinion that the Special Leave Petition itself was not maintainable. We are of the opinion that the discretion exercised by a Court, particularly a superior court, should not be lightly interfered with. We find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 376 of the IPC and a fine of ₹ 5000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; both the sentences to run concurrently. 2.3 An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to the High Court. The High Court vide the impugned judgment held that a case under Section 306 was not made out and the accused was entitled to acquittal under that provision but on the question of the offence under Section 376 observed as under: We note that Sunita was aged 21 years and the appellant was aged 20 years when they indulged in a promiscuous relationship. At the age of 21, Sunita was matured enough to understand the moral worth of her acts. She was conscious that by having repeated sex with the appellant she could become pregnant and hence the appellant had told her to take Mala-D tablets. There is some participative act committed by Sunita. It is not a case where the appellant forced herself on Sunita. There is no evidence that the appellant compelled Sunita to have sex with the other person. We note that the Sunita has only written that the appellant was compelling her to have sex with a third person. She has not written that she was actua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause the accused had, in the meanwhile, cleared the Indian Administrative Services Examination was not a relevant consideration. We are unable to accept the plea raised by the learned counsel. 5. Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with Appeal (s). Section 372 specifically provides that no appeal shall lie from a judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided by the Code or by any other law which authorizes an appeal. The proviso inserted by Section 372 (Act 5 of 2009) w.e.f. 31st December, 2009, gives a limited right to the victim to file an appeal in the High Court against any order of a Criminal Court acquitting the accused or convicting him for a lesser offence or the imposition of inadequate compensation. The proviso may not thus be applicable as it came in the year 2009 (long after the present incident) and, in any case, would confer a right only on a victim and also does not envisage an appeal against an inadequate sentence. An appeal would thus be maintainable only under Section 377 to the High Court as it is effectively challenging the quantum of sentence. Section 377 is reproduced below: 377. Appeal by the State Government against sent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, of the opinion that the Special Leave Petition itself was not maintainable. 7. In Pritam Singh v. State AIR (37) 1950 SC 169 , this Court while dealing with a criminal matter (after the grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution) considered the scope and ambit of this Article and observed: 9. On a careful examination of Article 136 along with the preceding article, it seems clear that the wide discretionary power with which this Court is invested under it is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases on1y, and as far as possible a more or less uniform standard should be adopted in granting special leave in the wide range of matters which can come up before it under this article. By virtue of this article, we can grant special leave in civil cases, in criminal cases, in income-tax cases, in cases which come up before different kinds of tribunals and in a variety of other cases. The only uniform standard which in our opinion can be laid down in the circumstances is that Court should grant special leave to appeal only in those cases where special circumstances are shown to exist........It is sufficient for our purpose to say that though we are not bou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fairly while hearing a case under Article 136, either in the matter of grant of leave or, after such grant, in the final disposal of the appeal? We have hardly any doubt that there is a procedure necessarily implicit in the power vested in the summit court. It must be remembered that Article 136 confers jurisdiction on the highest court. The founding fathers unarguably intended in the very terms of Article 136 that it shall be exercised by the highest judges of th land with scrupulous adherence to judicial principles well established by precedents in our jurisprudence. Judicial discretion is canalised authority, not arbitrary eccentricity. The Court then examined the implications of completely shutting out a private party from filing a petition under Article 136 on the locus standi and observed thus: Having said this, we must emphasise that we are living in times when many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievance when the State becomes the sole repository for initiation o criminal action. Sometimes, pachydermic indifference of bureaucratic officials, at other times politicisation of higher functionaries may result in refusal to take a case to this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
