1987 JTR(SC) 648
1987 AIR(SC) 2104 ; 1988 1 CLR 478 ; 1987 CriLR 558 ; 1987 CriLR(Cal) 178 ; 1987 3 Crimes(SC) 215 ; 1987 CrLJ 1929 ; 1987 EastCrC(SC) 772 ; 1987 2 GLH 570 ; 1987 3 JT 382 ; 1987 2 KarLJ 353 ; 1987 2 RCR(Cri) 461 ; 1987 2 Scale 337 ; 1987 4 SCC 170 ; 1987 SCC(Cri) 744 ; 1987 3 SCR 968 ; 1988 1 ShimLC 151 ; 1987 KHC 1073
A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1987, D/- 14-8-1987.
State of Karnataka, Appellant
Versus
Narsa Reddy, Respondent.
Act Referred :CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.482
(A) The relevant statutory provisions include Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the High Court to exercise inherent powers for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, apply to the offences charged, including murder, dowry-related death, and criminal conspiracy. The High Courts authority to interfere and direct a de novo trial arises under Section 482, but such powers must be exercised without disrupting the orderly procedure, especially where a valid trial is already pending before the Sessions Court and the impleaded parties seek sanction under Section 197 for prosecution.
(B) Key legal principles include the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482, the requirement of sanction under Section 197 for prosecuting public servants, the prevention of abuse of court process, and the principle that splitting a joint trial must not prejudice the rights of the accused or defeat the ends of justice.
Facts of the case:
The deceased was allegedly pushed into a well by the respondent and an accused, who then pulled her out, assaulted her, and strangled her. The prosecution later sought to implead public servants as accused under Sections 201 and 34 Penal Code. The Sessions Judge ordered their inclusion and directed a de novo trial. The accused public servants sought bail and challenged the trial, obtaining a stay from the High Court. The Single Judge then directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial against the respondent and another accused despite the stay.
Findings of Court:
The Single Judges direction to proceed with the trial was found to be unwarranted and likely to cause a miscarriage of justice. The stay order pending the revision preferred by the impleaded accused should have been addressed by the High Court through the revision, not by interfering with the ongoing Sessions trial.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in directing the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial under Section 482 when a stay was already granted in a related revision seeking sanction for prosecuting public servants.
Ratio Decidendi:
The inherent powers under Section 482 must not be used to split a joint trial or frustrate the proceedings; the proper course was to dispose of the revision seeking sanction, and the direction to proceed de novo was erroneous.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Courts order is set aside, and the proceedings in the Sessions Case are stayed until the disposal of the revision.
(A) The relevant statutory provisions include Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the High Court to exercise inherent powers for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, apply to the offences charged, including murder, dowry-related death, and criminal conspiracy. The High Courts authority to interfere and direct a de novo trial arises under Section 482, but such powers must be exercised without disrupting the orderly procedure, especially where a valid trial is already pending before the Sessions Court and the impleaded parties seek sanction under Section 197 for prosecution.
(B) Key legal principles include the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482, the requirement of sanction under Section 197 for prosecuting public servants, the prevention of abuse of court process, and the principle that splitting a joint trial must not prejudice the rights of the accused or defeat the ends of justice.
Facts of the case:
The deceased was allegedly pushed into a well by the respondent and an accused, who then pulled her out, assaulted her, and strangled her. The prosecution later sought to implead public servants as accused under Sections 201 and 34 Penal Code. The Sessions Judge ordered their inclusion and directed a de novo trial. The accused public servants sought bail and challenged the trial, obtaining a stay from the High Court. The Single Judge then directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial against the respondent and another accused despite the stay.
Findings of Court:
The Single Judges direction to proceed with the trial was found to be unwarranted and likely to cause a miscarriage of justice. The stay order pending the revision preferred by the impleaded accused should have been addressed by the High Court through the revision, not by interfering with the ongoing Sessions trial.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in directing the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial under Section 482 when a stay was already granted in a related revision seeking sanction for prosecuting public servants.
Ratio Decidendi:
The inherent powers under Section 482 must not be used to split a joint trial or frustrate the proceedings; the proper course was to dispose of the revision seeking sanction, and the direction to proceed de novo was erroneous.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Courts order is set aside, and the proceedings in the Sessions Case are stayed until the disposal of the revision.
P.R.RAMASESHESH.S.PARIHARHAR
Judgement
SEN, J. :- The question involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the High Court of Karnataka was justified in directing the Sessions Judge, Bidar to proceed with the trial of Sessions Case No. 23 of 1984 insofar as it relates to respondent Narsa Reddy and one Vaijinath, accused 2, arraigned for having committed alleged offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 201 both read with S. 34, Penal Code, 1860 and Ss. 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. While issuing notice, we were not satisfied about the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Single Judge which had the effect of splitting up of the trial although the prosecution case against the accused arose out of the same incident and the evidence to be led by the prosecution against them was more or less common. It also seemed to us that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge were to be implemented the learned Sessions Judge would be constrained to proceed against the respondent and accused 2 Vaijinath and thereby the very object of directing de novo trial would be frustrated. At the hearing, no one appeared for the respondent and therefore we did not have the benefit of hearing his counsel.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows. On February 14, 1984, at about 7 p. m. the respondent Narsa Reddy pushed his wife the deceased Jagdamba into a well situate in his garden to cause her death and he then with the help of accused 2, Vaijinath pulled her out of the well and brought her to the house of the respondent where he assaulted her with a stick and thereafter strangulated her to death. After the committal, the Sessions case was posted for evidence and evidence of four witnesses was recorded. The testimony of PW 3 Sangareddy and PW 4 Rangareddy revealed the involvement of Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John, who were cited as prosecution witnesses, in the disposal of the dead body of the deceased, that they had also committed the offence under S. 201 read with S. 34 Penal Code along with the other two accused. An application was accordingly filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under S. 319(4), Criminal P.C. for impleading Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John as accused 3 and 4 in the Sessions case. On the said application, the learned Sessions Judge by h is order dated August 22, 1985 ordered that Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John be impleaded as accused 3 and I for the offence under S. 201 read with S. 34 Penal Code. He also ordered that a de novo trial would be held against the accused persons after refraining charges. Before the trial could proceed further, the newly impleaded accused 3 and 4 filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge contending that they could not be impleaded as accused and that since they were public servants, sanction under S. 197 of the Code was required for their prosecution. The application of accused 3 and 4 was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on October 28, 1985. Thereupon, Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John, impleaded as accused 3 and 4, preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985 before the High Court. The High Court has admitted the revision and granted stay of proceedings in the Sessions case. In the meanwhile. the respondent Narsa Reddy who had been arrayed as accused I made an application for bail under S. 439(l) before the learned Sessions Judge contending that in view of the stay order granted by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985, the trial of the Sessions case was unduly protracted and hence he should be released on bail, apart from the ground that no prima facie case has been made out against him.
4. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated September 25, 1985 rejected the application on the ground that earlier similar applications for bail were rejected both by him as well as the High Court and it could not be said that the trial was protracted, merely because of stay granted by the High Court, observing that the case was likely to be concluded at an early date. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred a revision before the High Court. The learned Single Judge by his order dated March 28, 1985 rejected the application for bail under S. 439(l) of the Code, vacated the stay granted by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985 insofar as the trial against the respondent and the aforesaid Vaijinath, accused 2 was concerned and directed the learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial against them as early as possible. Hence this appeal by special leave.
5. We have no manner of doubt that the direction made by the learned Single Judge presumably exercising the inherent powers of the High Court under S. 482 Criminal P.C. was wholly unwarranted. It is somewhat strange that the learned Single Judge should have made a direction at all requiring the learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial as against the respondent and accused 2, Vaijinath merely because there was stay granted by the High Court in revision preferred by the co-accused Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John, accused 3 and 4 against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated October 28, 1985 rejecting the objection as to the validity of trial for want of sanction. If he felt that the grant of stay would prejudicially affect the respondent and accused 2, Vaijinath and subject them to a protracted trial, the proper course for the learned Single Judge was to have heard and disposed of the Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985 rather than make a direction of this kind which would, in fact, result in splitting up of the trial which is apt to cause miscarriage of justice, besides serious prejudice to the prosecution. From the nature of the prosecution case, it is quite apparent that the evidence to be led by the prosecution would be more or less common as it relates to the same occurrence. It could not be said that merely because the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge were held up due to stay granted by the High Court in that revision, the learned Single Judge could have taken recourse to the inherent powers of the High Court under S. 482 of the Code, or that it was necessary to do so either to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Any further delay in the trial could be prevented by taking up the revision for hearing.
6. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the High Court is directed to hear and dispose of Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985 as early as possible. In the meanwhile, the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1984 before the learned Sessions Judge shall remain stayed till the disposal of the revision.
Appeal allowed.