Appellate power to secure attendance of an acquitted respondent extends to non-bailable warrant in appropriate cases.

The Supreme Court's Article 136 jurisdiction, read with Article 142, includes an incidental power to secure the attendance of an acquitted respondent when special leave is granted against an order of acquittal. That power is treated as necessary to make appellate jurisdiction effective and to do complete justice, drawing support from the analogous power recognised in appellate proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Codes. The Court stated that the choice between a bailable and non-bailable warrant depends on the facts of each case, including the seriousness of the offence, the risk of absconding, and the need to preserve effective appellate review. It rejected the Article 21 objection, holding that such process is issued under constitutional jurisdiction and according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Supreme Court, while granting special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution against an order of acquittal in a capital case, has the power to issue a non-bailable warrant for the arrest and committal to prison of the acquitted respondent.

Analysis: The power of the High Court under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, later re-enacted as Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to secure the attendance of an accused pending an appeal against acquittal was treated as an ancillary and necessary incident of appellate jurisdiction. On that reasoning, the plenary power of the Supreme Court under Article 136, read with its authority under Article 142 to do complete justice and to secure attendance of any person, was held to include the same incidental power when special leave is granted against an acquittal. The discretion to issue a bailable or non-bailable warrant was said to depend on the circumstances of each case, including the seriousness of the offence, the possibility of absconding, and the need to ensure effective exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The Court also rejected the contention that such an order violated Article 21, holding that it was passed pursuant to constitutional jurisdiction and according to procedure established by law.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court has the power, in an appropriate case, to issue a non-bailable warrant and secure the arrest and detention of an acquitted respondent while entertaining an appeal against acquittal under Article 136.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court's power to grant special leave under Article 136 carries with it ancillary powers under Article 142 to secure attendance and make effective orders necessary for complete justice, including arrest and detention pending appeal against acquittal.

---