9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (4) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court were inadmissible in evidence. In support of the appeal, Mr. Hardy learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted a short point before us. It appears that the case of the respondent was being tried by a Special Judge a who after hearing the patties passed a well reasoned order by which he framed charges against the respondent. Against this order revision was taken to the High Court which was dismissed and the order of the Special Judge was upheld. Meanwhile, this Court decided in the case of P. Sirajuddin etc. v. State of Madras etc. 1971 CriLJ 523, that where the evidence relied on by the prosecution consisted of statements which are signed by the makers of the statements and are obtained under inducement, threat or promises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a charge sheet. Clearly the idea is that no one should be put to the harassment of a criminal trial unless there are good and substantial reasons for holding it. After sometime the original Special Judge was succeeded by another Special Judge who framed charges and at that time the respondent raised the question of law that as the charges were mainly based on the statement of witnesses who had given signed statements earlier under duress or inducement, the charges should be quashed. The second special Judge rejected the contention of the respondent and framed the charges. Against this order, the respondent filed a second revision petition before the High Court which was allowed by the impugned order of the High Court. The High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is well founded. The question, however, is: whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, should be exercised our discretionary powers under Article 186 when the High Court by virtue of the impugned order has merely given effect to a recent decision of this Court as to the admissibility of certain statements, the order of the High Court may be wrong or even without jurisdiction, but there can be no doubt that it has passed a correct and just order which is in consequence with the decision of this Court and is calculated to promote the ends of justice. This Court, therefore, even if the order is wrong, would in exercise of its discretionary special leave jurisdiction refr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
