DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
07 May 2021
JUDGES:
Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose
PARTIES:
Sanjay Kumar Rai (Plaintiff)
State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (Respondent)
SUMMARY
The following judgement deals with the jurisdictional mistake by not entertaining the revision petition on merits and neglecting the fact that 'release' is a significant right given to the accused. Supreme Court held that the court have not inspected the decency of criminal examination for this case concerning the improvement of witness statements and it is important for the High Court to re-evaluate the whole matter and decide the revision petition afresh.
AN OVERVIEW
1. The appeal was raised from the judgement which was passed by the High Court of Allahabad in which a criminal revision was against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate denying to discharge the appellant under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC has been turned down.
2. In this case, a complaint was lodged by Kuldeep Mishra who was a letter writer of the newspaper ‘The Pioneer’. It was alleged that he had done a journalistic investigation for malpractices against ‘Kalpana Indane Service’ in which the appellant was a partner and also, he had put in an application for certain information under the Right to Information Act 2005, in order to conduct an investigation on alleged black marketing of gas cylinders by the agency.
3. It was also alleged that the respondent was threatened by the appellant. So, he filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPc to conduct an investigation.
4. During the course of investigation, the statement of the complaint was recorded and in which he introduced Mohd. Sharif Khan and Umesh Kumar Bhatt as witnesses as they also heard the threat done by the appellant.
5. Before outlining the charges, the appellant looked for his release under Section 239 CrPc and claimed that he was falsely implicated and the investigation was unfair and his right of Principle of natural justice that is Audi alteram partem was violated. CJM did not agree and rejected his application. Aggrieved by the order the appellant approached the High Court for reversal of CJM’sorder.
6. The High Court quoted the judgement of “Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation” noticed that “interference in the order framing charges or refusing to discharge is called for in rarest of rare case only to correct the patent error of jurisdiction”. Tracking down no such jurisdictional mistake in CJM's order the Criminal Revision Petition was excused. Not satisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition.
IMPORTANT PROVISION
Constitution of India:
- Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
ISSUES
The major issue concerned in this case-
- Whether the appeal is maintainable or not?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
1. The appellant argued that the tale of the complaint seems uncertain and unsure, as he himself made the call and put it on the speaker and had two witnesses ready to hear the conversation. As well as no call records had been found by the police, affidavits of the witnesses were aimlessly acknowledged and no endeavor was made to record their assertions under Section 161 of CrPc.
2. Underappreciating the aforesaid judgement, followed the judgement ‘Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra’ and quoted that “Orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397 (2) of CrPc”.
3. Supreme Court held that the High Court has donea jurisdictional mistake by not entertaining the revision petition on merits and neglecting the fact that 'release' is a significant right given to the accused. In accordance with the fact stated that the High Court and the court beneath have not inspected the decency of criminal examination for this situation and other related perspectives concerning the improvement of witness proclamations, it is important for the High Court to re-evaluate the whole matter and decide the revision petition afresh.
CONCLUSION
The Hon’ble Court observed that after appreciating the fact and circumstances of the case, theremand the case back to the High Court for its reconsideration in accordance with lawand setaside the aforesaid order."
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
