TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India could be invoked against an order passed by the Special Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. (ii) Whether the order issuing process against the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was an interlocutory order outside the scope of appeal under Section 10 of the Special Court Act. (iii) Whether the impugned order could be sustained on the requirements governing exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India could be invoked against an order passed by the Special Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992.
Analysis: The Special Court Act created a special forum, but the Judge of the Special Court remained a High Court Judge functioning under the statutory scheme of the Act. The existence of an appeal to the Supreme Court against non-interlocutory orders did not exclude constitutional judicial review in appropriate cases. The authorities relied upon showed that judicial superintendence under Articles 226 and 227 could extend to adjudicatory bodies where the statute did not clearly bar such review, and the mere special character of the forum did not place it beyond constitutional scrutiny.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the order of the Special Court was open to judicial review.
Issue (ii): Whether the order issuing process against the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was an interlocutory order outside the scope of appeal under Section 10 of the Special Court Act.
Analysis: The appeal provision under Section 10 excluded interlocutory orders. Applying the settled distinction between final and interlocutory orders, and the principles governing orders such as framing of charge, the order under Section 319 was treated as one that did not finally determine the rights of the parties in the sense required for appeal. If the application had been rejected, the petitioner would have been out of the case, but the order allowing the application did not by itself amount to a final adjudication of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, it was not treated as an appealable final order.
Conclusion: The impugned order was not an appealable final order under Section 10 of the Special Court Act.
Issue (iii): Whether the impugned order could be sustained on the requirements governing exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Power under Section 319 is extraordinary, discretionary, and must be exercised sparingly on the basis of evidence recorded during inquiry or trial. The Court must reach reasonable satisfaction that the person sought to be added has committed an offence and can be tried with the existing accused. The record before the Special Court did not justify sustaining the order on the standard required by the Supreme Court authorities. The matter was therefore not finally examined on the evidence and was left for reconsideration by the Special Judge in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The order could not be sustained and required fresh consideration by the Special Judge.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in obtaining setting aside of the impugned order, and the matter was sent back for fresh decision by the Special Judge in accordance with the governing law.
Ratio Decidendi: An order under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be made only on recorded evidence giving the court reasonable satisfaction, and statutory exclusion of appeals against interlocutory orders does not bar constitutional judicial review where the special statute does not clearly oust it.
TaxTMI 
