1998 JTR(SC) 914
1998 3 AICLR 170 ; 1998 AIR(SC) 3334 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 3274 ; 1998 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 649 ; 1998 37 AllCriC 635 ; 1999 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 144 ; 1998 CriLR 597 ; 1998 3 Crimes(SC) 230 ; 1998 CrLJ 4602 ; 1998 6 JT 195 ; 1998 5 Scale 139 ; 1998 6 SCC 666 ; 1998 SCC(Cri) 1553 ; 1998 SCC(L&S) 1693 ; 1998 SCR 942 ; 1998 2 UJ 591 ; 1998 KHC 1587 ; 1998 7 Supreme 165
1998(7) Supreme 165
Supreme Court of India
(From Himachal Pradesh High Court)
G.T. Nanavati & S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Lashkari Ram & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Mast Ram Tanta & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 226 of 1983
Decided on 1-9-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Anil Soni, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Rishi Kesh, Advocate.
Important Point
The remarks made by the H.P. High Court while disposing of (suo motu) Criminal Revision are a part of the reasoning of the High Court so the same cannot be expunged because that will amount to removing the very foundation on which the High Court judgment is based.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
(A) The appeal pertains to observations made by the High Court while exercising suo motu powers under the broader principles of judicial review and inherent powers of the High Court, as those powers are implicitly read into the constitutional guarantee of justice under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal and thereby scrutinize the correctness of High Court orders that dispose of matters in a manner potentially undermining the rule of law or the administration of justice. The High Court, while quashing a trial tainted by plea bargaining and haste, acted within its authority to ensure the integrity of the judicial process, and the observations made therein form an inseparable part of the reasoned order, attracting the bar of Article 14 principles against speaking injudicially.
(B) Key legal principles include the High Court's inherent powers to suo motu review and enhance sentences to ensure proportionality and deterrence, the prohibition against plea bargaining which undermines the criminal justice system, the requirement of reasoned orders where observations must flow naturally from the evidence, and the principle that appellate courts must respect the factual and legal foundations laid by the High Court unless they are without basis or suffer from apparent error.
Facts of the case:
The Respondent No. 1 was tried by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Forest Act, entered a guilty plea, and was sentenced to pay fine only. The High Court, exercising suo motu powers, found the original sentence inadequate, initiated a separate proceeding, observed that the trial was conducted in haste and involved plea bargaining, quashed the trial, and remanded the case for a fresh trial, while making critical observations against the appellants who are officers of the Himachal Pradesh Government.
Findings of Court:
The High Court concluded that the trial was conducted in an unholy haste and involved plea bargaining, leading to the quashing of the trial and a remand for retrial, with observations against the appellants forming an integral part of the reasoned order.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in making adverse observations against the appellants in the course of exercising suo motu powers to quash a trial, and whether such observations can be expunged on appeal without undermining the foundation of the impugned judgment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The observations made by the High Court are inextricably woven into the reasoning and foundation of its judgment, and removing them would strip the order of its basis; hence, the High Courts order is valid and cannot be disturbed on appeal merely because the observations are unfavorable to the appellants.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
(A) The appeal pertains to observations made by the High Court while exercising suo motu powers under the broader principles of judicial review and inherent powers of the High Court, as those powers are implicitly read into the constitutional guarantee of justice under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal and thereby scrutinize the correctness of High Court orders that dispose of matters in a manner potentially undermining the rule of law or the administration of justice. The High Court, while quashing a trial tainted by plea bargaining and haste, acted within its authority to ensure the integrity of the judicial process, and the observations made therein form an inseparable part of the reasoned order, attracting the bar of Article 14 principles against speaking injudicially.
(B) Key legal principles include the High Court's inherent powers to suo motu review and enhance sentences to ensure proportionality and deterrence, the prohibition against plea bargaining which undermines the criminal justice system, the requirement of reasoned orders where observations must flow naturally from the evidence, and the principle that appellate courts must respect the factual and legal foundations laid by the High Court unless they are without basis or suffer from apparent error.
Facts of the case:
The Respondent No. 1 was tried by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Forest Act, entered a guilty plea, and was sentenced to pay fine only. The High Court, exercising suo motu powers, found the original sentence inadequate, initiated a separate proceeding, observed that the trial was conducted in haste and involved plea bargaining, quashed the trial, and remanded the case for a fresh trial, while making critical observations against the appellants who are officers of the Himachal Pradesh Government.
Findings of Court:
The High Court concluded that the trial was conducted in an unholy haste and involved plea bargaining, leading to the quashing of the trial and a remand for retrial, with observations against the appellants forming an integral part of the reasoned order.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in making adverse observations against the appellants in the course of exercising suo motu powers to quash a trial, and whether such observations can be expunged on appeal without undermining the foundation of the impugned judgment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The observations made by the High Court are inextricably woven into the reasoning and foundation of its judgment, and removing them would strip the order of its basis; hence, the High Courts order is valid and cannot be disturbed on appeal merely because the observations are unfavorable to the appellants.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
Judgment
Nanavati, J.-In this appeal, filed by some of the officers of the Himachal Pradesh Government, what is called in question are the remarks made against them by the High Court, while disposing of Criminal Revision No. 56/82.
2. Respondent No. 1 Mast Ram Tanta was tried by the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Theog for certain offences punishable under the Indian Penal code and the Forest Act. Respondent No. 1 pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay fine only. The High Court finding that the sentence imposed upon Respondent No. 1 was inadequate, in exercise of its suo moto powers, issued notice to him calling him to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. During those proceedings the High Court found that the whole trial was conducted in an unholy haste and there was plea bargaining. Therefore, instead of enhancing the sentence it thought it proper to quash the whole trial and remanded the case back to the trial Court for conducting the trial afresh. While disposing of the Revision Application in that manner the High Court made certain observations against the present appellants.
3. Having gone through the judgment, we find that the said observations are part and parcel of the reasoning of the High Court and they have been made while appreciating the evidence on record. Those observations are a part of the reasoning of the High Court. They cannot be expunged because that will amount to removing the very foundation on which the High Court judgment is based.
4. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
(N.K.R.) Appeal dismissed.
**********