TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Limit of High Court's Revisional Jurisdiction Over Criminal Convictions Upheld</h1> <h3>New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Krishna Kumar Pandey</h3> New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Krishna Kumar Pandey - TMI Issues Involved:1. Refusal of the High Court to recall an order affecting the service career of an individual convicted under Section 498-A IPC.2. Jurisdiction of the High Court in revision arising from conviction to impact employer's disciplinary control.3. Interpretation of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.4. Application of Section 362 of the Code in altering or reviewing judgments.5. Employer's right to take disciplinary action based on employee's criminal conviction.Analysis:1. The case involved an appeal against the refusal of the High Court to recall an order affecting the service career of an individual convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The employer, a company, challenged the High Court's decision that the conviction would not adversely impact the employee's service career.2. The central issue was whether the High Court, in a revision arising from conviction, had the authority to restrict the employer's right to exercise disciplinary control over an employee based on a criminal conviction. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the correctness, legality, or propriety of lower court orders and does not extend to altering civil consequences of a conviction.3. Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empower the High Court to oversee lower courts' decisions but do not grant authority to absolve individuals from civil consequences of criminal convictions. The Court emphasized that the purpose of revisional power is to rectify errors of jurisdiction or law, not to interfere with employer-employee relations.4. The Court addressed the application of Section 362 of the Code, which limits a court's power to alter or review judgments. It noted that while the section restricts revisiting judgments for clerical errors, inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked to set aside orders that violate principles of natural justice or abuse the court's process.5. The judgment highlighted the employer's right to take disciplinary action based on an employee's criminal conviction, emphasizing that the employer could consider factors like long service and job performance. The Court ruled that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by preemptively safeguarding the employee's service career without legal basis, ultimately allowing the employer's appeal and overturning the High Court's order.
TaxTMI 