TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Remits Case for Reconsideration</h1> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remitted the case back to the High Court for consideration on its merits. ... - Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the revision application under section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions to take cognizance of the offence.3. Validity of the sanction given by the Chief Secretary.4. Application of inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the 1973 Code.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Revision Application under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:The High Court rejected the revision application filed by the appellant under section 397(1) of the 1973 Code, citing the bar contained in subsection (2) of section 397. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the case. The Supreme Court reiterated the view taken in Amar Nath's case but modified it, stating that the inherent powers under section 482 of the 1973 Code are not entirely barred by section 397(2). The Court emphasized that the inherent powers should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.2. Jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions to Take Cognizance of the Offence:The appellant contended that the allegations against Shri Antulay were not in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions and hence, the Court of Sessions could not take cognizance without the case being committed to it. The Supreme Court clarified that the order taking cognizance of an offence, whether done illegally or without jurisdiction, is not a final order and hence, could be considered an interlocutory one. However, the inherent power of the High Court can still be invoked for quashing such a criminal proceeding if it is necessary to secure the ends of justice.3. Validity of the Sanction Given by the Chief Secretary:The appellant argued that the sanction given was invalid as it was not given by the State Government but by the Chief Secretary and that the Chief Secretary had not applied his mind to the entire conspectus of the facts. The Supreme Court did not specifically address the validity of the sanction in this judgment but emphasized that the High Court must consider such contentions on their merits.4. Application of Inherent Powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the 1973 Code:The Supreme Court discussed the scope of the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the 1973 Code. It was stated that the inherent power should not be exercised against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. The Court highlighted that the bar under section 397(2) operates only in the exercise of revisional power and not in the exercise of inherent power. The inherent power can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, particularly in cases where the criminal proceeding is initiated illegally, vexatiously, or without jurisdiction.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, and remitted the case back to the High Court to dispose of the appellant's petition on merits in accordance with the law and in light of this judgment. The Court emphasized the need for the High Court to consider the merits of the contentions raised by the appellant and to exercise its inherent powers judiciously to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
