9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tute for speeding up the proceedings. This can be discerned from the following words: In order to expedite the proceedings, provisions for day-to-day trial of cases and prohibitory provisions with regard to grant of stay and exercise of powers of revision on interlocutory orders have also been included. 3. The prohibition is couched in a language admitting of no exception whatsoever, which is clear from the provision itself. The prohibition is incorporated in sub-section consists of three clauses. For all the three clauses the controlling non-obstante words are set out in the connecting portion as: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure 1973. 4. Hence none of the provisions in the Code could be invoked for circumventing any one of the bans enumerated in the sub-section. 5. Clause (a) of the sub-section prohibits reversal or alteration of any finding or sentence or order passed by a Special Judge on the ground of absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required for taking cognizance of an offence punishable in the Act, unless in the opinion of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act because the title to Section 19 is previous sanction necessary for prosecution. It could have been more advisable if the prohibition contained in sub-section (3) has been included in a separate Section by providing a separate distinct title. Be that as it may, that is no ground for by-passing the legislative prohibition contained in the sub-section. 10. I fully concur with the direction indicated by Variava J. in the judgment that the Registrar of each High Court shall list the cases in which such stay was granted by orders happened to be passed by such High Court and to board all such cases before the appropriate bench without further delay. This is to enable the High Court concerned to dispose of such matters in the light of this judgment. S.N. Variava, J. 11. Leave granted. 12. Heard parties. 13. This Appeal is against an Order dated 25th April, 2001. By this Order a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing an Order dated 8th July, 1994 passed by a Special Judge constituted under the Prevention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court. He submitted that this must necessarily be so as otherwise the Court could not effectively exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. 18. In Support of this last submission, he relied upon the case of Income Tax Office vs. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi, [1969]71ITR815(SC) . This was a case under the Income Tax Act. Certain amounts were imposed as penalty upon the assessee for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee preferred appeals and prayed for stay of recovery of the penalties. The Tribunal declined to grant stay on the ground that it had no power to do so. The High Court held that the Tribunal had the inherent power to stay and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the application for stay in accordance with law. In appeal by the Income Tax Officer, this Court confirmed the findings of the High Court that the Tribunal had power to stay recovery. This Court held that the power of stay was incidental to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. It must immediately be noted that there was no statutory provision barring grant of stay. 19. Mr. Shishodia further submitted that both the High Courts and this Court have tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the trial court upholding the grant of sanction for prosecution would be final if it has not already been challenged and the trial has commenced. In order to expedite the proceedings, provisions for day-to-day trial of cases and prohibitory provisions with regard to grant of say and exercise of powers of a revision on interlocutory order have also been included. 23. The learned Solicitor General Salve submitted that inherent jurisdiction of a Court could not be exercised if there was a specific provision for redressal of the grievances of the aggrieved party or against an express bar of law engrafted in any other provision. He further submitted that inherent jurisdiction had to be very sparingly exercised only to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. In support of this submission he relied upon the cases of Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 1978CriLJ165 , Janata Deal vs. H.S. Chowdhary others reported in 1993CriLJ600 and Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR2000SC498 . 24. We have heard the parties. Section 19(3)(c) of the said Act reads as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o substance in the submission that Section 19 would not apply to a High Court. Section 5(3) of the said Act shows that the Special Court under the said Act is a Court of Session. Therefore the power of revision and/or the inherent jurisdiction can only be exercised by the High Court. 28. Thus in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act there can be no stay of trials. We clarify that we are not saying that proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be adapted. In appropriate cases proceedings under Section 482 can be adapted. However, even if petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is entertained there can be no stay of trials under the said Act. It is then for the party to convince the concerned Court to expedite the hearing of that petition. However merely because the concerned Court is not in a position to take up the petition for hearing would be no ground for staying the trial even temporarily. 29. In this Appeal we see no reason to interfere with the impugned Order. The Appeal stand dismissed. We clarify the merits of the case have not been argued before us. We are thus not expressing any opinion on the mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
