9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The said Court directed the fifth respondent herein to inquire into the complaint and to submit a report. The case was thereupon registered as Chitpur Police Station Case No. 94 dated April 23, 1986. The said proceeding gave rise to three separate Writ Petitions with identical prayers to the effect, inter alia, that the investigation and the consequential proceeding pending in the Court below be recalled, rescinded, cancelled or revoked and that further proceedings be stayed. These Writ Petitions were filed individually by the appellant and Chha-ganlal Baid and Kundanmall Baid. In the Writ Petition (C.R. I2852(W) of 1987) filed by Chhaganlal Baid an interim order of injunction was passed on April 28, 1988 to the effect that the police authorities would be at liberty to proceed with the investigation but would not file the final report without the leave of the Court. However, in the other two Writ Petitions filed by the appellant and Kundanlall Baid (C.R. No.713(W) of 1988 and C.R. No. 10656(W) of 1987 respectively), interim relief was granted staying further investigation in the case. To be precise, in C.R. No. 713(W) of 1988 filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication, and the different interim orders, relating to the same police station case, have been passed. Therefore, the interim orders should be recalled and should be made uniform so that there is no conflict in the interim orders. When this Court passed an interim order in C.R. 12852(W) of 1987 whereby the police authorities were given liberty to proceed with the criminal case, but they were restrained from filing any final report without leave of this Court the same interim order should be deemed to have been passed by this Court in this writ application as also in the C.R. 10656(W) of 1987. I make it clear that the police authorities would be at liberty to proceed with Chitpur P.S. Case No. 94 dated 23rd April, 1986 in accordance with law subject to the condition that in case any charge-sheet has to be submitted the same should not be submitted without obtaining leave of this Court. This order, I am passing considering the fact this court has passed inconsistent interim orders in the same matters overlooking the order passed in the other case and that unless interim order is modified, the interim order passed in other cases should not be given effect to. As because this cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Division Courts constituted by two or more Judges of the said High Court, of the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in such Court, in such manner as may appear to such Court to be convenient for the due administration of justice. Section 14 provided that the Chief Justice of each High Court shall, from time to time, determine what Judge in each case shall sit alone, and what Judges of the Court, whether with or without the Chief Justice, shall constitute the several Division Courts. 12. The Letters Patent dated May 14, 1862 for the High Court of Judicature to be established in Bengal in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter Act was transmitted to the Governor-General of India in Council by the despatch dated May 14, 1862 from Sir Charles Wood, Secretary of State. The said Letters Patent were afterwards revoked by further Letters Patent dated December 28, 1865. Clause 36 of the Letters Patent dated December 28, 1865 in its original form provided, inter alia that any function which was thereby to be performed by the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction, may be performed by any Judge, or by an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provision of any order made under the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and to the provisions of any Act of the appropriate Legislature enacted by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by this Act, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing High Court, and the respective powers of the judges thereof in relation to the administration of justice in the court, including any power to make rules of court and to regulate the sittings of the court and of members thereof sitting alone or in division courts, shall be the same as immediately before the establishment of the Dominion. 16. The Government of India Act, 1935, was repealed by the Constitution of India. Article 225 of the Constitution of India, in so far as it is relevant for the present purposes, reads as follows : 225. Jurisdiction of existing High Courts. -- Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate Legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by this Constitution, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing High Court, and the respective powers of the Judges thereof in relation to the administ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions contained in subsection (3) of Section 51 of the Act, but inheres in him in the very nature of things. Reference to the statutory provisions in the above-extracted portion is to Section 51 Subsection (3) of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 which, inter alia, provided that the Judges and Division Courts of the High Court for a new State may also sit at such other place or places in that State as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor, appoint. 20. in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR1962SC876 , which reached the apex court from decisions rendered in two criminal revision cases by a Special Bench of three Judges of the Calcutta High Court, similar observations are found to have been made. The question in that case was whether in the absence of a provision similar to proviso (ii) to Rule I of Chapter II of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Appellate Side) in sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the said Chapter, it was open to a Division Bench which initially heard the criminal revisions to refer them to the Chief Justice for the constitution of larger Bench. S.K. Das, J., who delivered a minority judgment, dealt with this question elabora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Talukdar's case AIR1962SC876 . 23. The foregoing review of the constitutional and statutory provisions and the case law on the subject leaves no room for doubt or debate that once the Chief Justice has determined what Judges of the Court are to sit alone or to constitute the several Division Courts and has allocated the judicial business of the Court amongst them, the power and jurisdiction to take cognizance of the respective classes or categories of cases presented in a formal way for their decision, according to such determination, is acquired. To put it negatively, the power and jurisdiction to take cognizance of and to hear specified categories or classes of cases and to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in respect of them is derived only from the determination made by the Chief Justice in exercise of his constitutional, statutory and inherent powers and from no other source and no cases which is not covered by such determination can be entertained, dealt with or decided by the Judges sitting singly or in Division Courts till such determination remains operative. Till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts, no Judge who sits singly can sit in a D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns or writs, or specified subjects, such a, land or service, and so on and so forth. The jurisdiction may be further restricted with reference to the age of cases if the authority concerned directs the hearing of cases to take place before the Court according to the date of filing. This classification as to territorial jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the subject matter is obviously of a fundamental character. The cardinal position cannot be overlooked that before jurisdiction over the subject matter is exercised, the case must be legally brought before the concerned Court for the hearing and determination and that a judgment pronounced by Court without investment of jurisdiction is void. 25. Against the aforesaid background, let the point in issue be examined in light of the facts of the case. 26. By the Notification issued on March 20, 1989, it was determined by the Chief Justice that on and from Monday, March 27, 1989 until further orders, Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee would sit singly and take Part-heard and Contempt matters. This determination was operative and effective on April 6, 1989. This is apparent even from the Cause List for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
