all interlocutory orders including framing of charge under PC Act not subjected to Revision except in rare cases – the judgment of a Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 at 714, puts it very well when it says: “Though it cannot be said that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass orders either way, relating to the cases under the Act 1987, that power should be exercised sparingly, that too only in rare and appropriate cases in extreme circumstances. But the judicial discipline and comity of courts require that the High Courts should refrain from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in such matters.” This aspect of Kartar Singh (supra) has been followed in Girish Kumar Suneja (supra) in paragraph 40 thereof and we respectfully concur with the same. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the Delhi High Court judgment’s conclusions in paragraph 33 (a), (b) and (d) must be set aside.

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1375-1376 OF 2013

ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY

PVT. LTD. & ANR. …Appellants

VERSUS

CENTRAL BURUEAU OF INVESTIVATION …Respondent

WITH

Criminal Appeal Nos.1383/2013, 1377/2013, 1382/2013, 1394/2013,

1384/2013, 1393/2013, 1386-1387/2013, 1385/2013, 1406/2013,

1396/2013, 1395/2013, 1391/2013, 1389/2013, 1388/2013, 1398/2013,

1397/2013, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2610/2013, Criminal

Appeal Nos. 1390/2013, 1399/2013, 1402/2013, 1400/2013, 1401/2013,

1404/2013, 1403/2013, 1405/2013, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.

6835/2013, 6834/2013, 6837/2013, Criminal Appeal No.388/2014,

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.10050-10051/2013, 9652-9653/2013,

Criminal Appeal No. 234/2014, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.

5678/2014, 1451/2014, 1399/2014, 2508/2014, 2970/2014, 2507/2014,

2939/2014, 2977/2014, 4709/2014, 6372/2014, 6391/2014, 6691-

6692/2014 and 9363/2017.

2

J U D G M E N T

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1375-1376 OF 2013

1. These appeals have been put up before this Bench of three

Judges in pursuance of order of Bench of two Judges dated 9th

September, 2013 as follows:

“Leave granted.

Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that

there is considerable difference of opinion

amongst different Benches of this Court as well

as all the High Courts. Mr. Ram Jethmalani,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner

in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave

Petition (Criminal)No.6470 of 2012 submits that

the subsequent decisions rendered by the twojudge

Benches are per incuriam, and in conflict

with the ratio of law laid down in the

Constitution Bench decision in Mohanlal

Maganlal Thacker v. State of Gujarat [(1968) 2

SCR 685].

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion

that it would be appropriate if the matters are

referred to and heard by a larger Bench.

Office is directed to place the matters before

the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for

appropriate orders.

In the meantime, further proceedings before

the trial Court shall remain stayed.”

3

2. Since the question of law to be determined is identical in all

cases, we have taken up for consideration this matter. In the light of

answer to the referred question this as well as all other matters may

be considered for disposal on merits by the appropriate Bench.

3. Brief facts first. F.I.R. dated 7th March, 2001 has been recorded

with the Delhi Special Police Establishment: CBI/SIU-VIII/New Delhi

Branch under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and

477A of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act) at the instance of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi (MCD) against the appellant and certain

officers of MCD alleging causing of wrongful loss to the MCD by

using fake invoices of Oil Companies relating to transportation of

Bitumen for use in “Dense Carpeting Works” of roads in Delhi during

the year 1997 and 1998.

4. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the

appellant and certain employees of MCD by the respondent-CBI

before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi on 28th November, 2002.

4

The appellants filed an application for discharge with the Special

Judge, CBI. On 1st February, 2007, the Special Judge, CBI directed

framing of the charges after considering the material before the

Court. It was held that there was a prima facie case against the

appellant and the other accused. The appellants filed Criminal

Revision No. 321 of 2007 before the Delhi High Court against the

order framing charge. The Revision Petition was converted into Writ

Petition (Criminal)No.352 of 2010.

5. Learned Single Judge referred the following question of law for

consideration by the Division Bench:

“Whether an order on charge framed by a

Special Judge under the provisions of

Prevention of Corruption Act, being an

interlocutory order, and when no revision

against the order or a petition under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. lies, can be assailed under Article

226/227 of the Constitution of India, whether or

not the offences committed include the

offences under Indian Penal Code apart from

offences under Prevention of Corruption Act?”

6. The learned Single Judge referred to the conflicting views taken

in earlier two single Bench decisions of the High Court in Dharambir

5

Khattar versus Central Bureau of Investigation1and R.C. Sabharwal

versus Central Bureau of Investigation2. It was observed :

“However, since there are two views, one

expressed by the Bench of Justice Jain in R.C.

Sabharwal’s (supra) case and one held by the

Bench of Justice Muralidhar in Dharamvir

Khattar’s case (supra) and by this Bench, I

consider that it was a fit case where a Larger

Bench should set the controversy at rest.”

7. In Dharambir Khattar (supra), the view of learned Single Judge

is as follows :

“32. To conclude this part of the discussion it is

held that in the context of Section 19(3)(c) the

words “no Court shall exercise the powers of

revision in relation to any interlocutory order

passed in any inquiry, trial…” includes an

interlocutory order in the form of an order on

charge or an order framing charge. On a

collective reading of the decisions in V.C.

Shukla and Satya Narayan Sharma, it is held

that in terms of Section 19(3)(c) PCA, no

revision petition would be maintainable in the

High Court against order on charge or an order

framing charge passed by the Special Court.

33. Therefore, in the considered view of this

Court, the preliminary objection of the CBI to

 

1 159 (2009) DLT 636 2 166(2010) DLT 362

6

the maintainability of the present petitions is

required to be upheld….”

8. In R.C. Sabharwal (supra), another learned Single Judge held

that even though no revision may lie against an interlocutory order,

there was no bar to the constitutional remedy under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution. At the same time, power under Section 482

could not be exercised in derogation of express bar in the statute in

view of decisions of this Court in CBI versus Ravi Shankar

Srivastava3, Dharimal Tobacco Products Ltd. and Ors. versus State of

Maharashtra and Anr. 4 , Madhu Limaye versus The State of

Maharashtra5, Krishnan versus Krishnaveni6 and State versus Navjot

Sandhu7.

9. It was observed :

“37. In view of the authoritative

pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Navjot Sandhu (supra), coupled

with its earlier decisions in the case of Madhu

Limaye (supra), it cannot be disputed that

inherent powers of the High Court, recognized

 

3 (2006)7 SCC 188 4 AIR 2009 SC 1032 5 (1977) 4 SCC 551 6 (1997) 4 SCC 241 7 (2003) 6 SCC 641

7

in Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, cannot be used when exercise of

such powers would be in derogation of an

express bar contained in a statutory

enactment, other than the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The inherent powers of the High

Court have not been limited by any other

provisions contained in the Code of Criminal

Procedure, as is evident from the use of the

words ?Nothing in this Code? in Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, but, the

powers under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised when

exercise of such powers would be against the

legislative mandate contained in some other

statutory enactment such as Section 19(3)(c) of

Prevention of Corruption Act.”

“29. The fact that the procedural aspect as

regards the hearing of the parties has been

incorporated in Section 22 does not really

throw light on whether an order on charge

would be an interlocutory order for the

purposes of Section 19(3)(c) PCA. A collective

reading of the two provisions indicates that in

the context of order on charge an order

discharging the accused may be an order that

would be subject-matter of a revision petition

at the instance perhaps of the prosecution.

Since all provisions of the statute have to be

given meaning, a harmonious construction of

the three provisions indicates that the kinds of

orders which can be challenged by way of a

revision petition in the High Court is narrowed

down to a considerable extent as explained in

the case of Satya Narayan Sharma.”

8

Further, after referring to Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner

of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam, AIR 1958 SC 398; Nihandra Bag

v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895; Sarpanch, Lonand

Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi and Anr., AIR 1968 SC 222; Maruti

Bala Raut v. Dashrath Babu Wathare and Ors., (1974) 2 SCC 615;

Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte and Anr., AIR 1975

SC 1297; Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and Anr., AIR 1979 SC 381;

Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad, AIR 1980 SC 892; Khalil Ahmed

Bashir Ahmed v. Tufelhussein Samasbhai Sarangpurwala, AIR 1988 SC

184; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1997 and

Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, AIR 2004 SC 3892, it was observed :

“25. It is well known fact that trials of corruption

cases are not permitted to proceed further

easily and a trial of corruption case takes

anything upto 20 years in completion. One

major reason for this state of affairs is that the

moment charge is framed, every trial lands into

High Court and order on charge is invariably

assailed by the litigants and the High Court

having flooded itself with such revision petitions,

would take any number of years in deciding

the revision petitions on charge and the trials

would remain stayed. Legislature looking at this

state of affairs, enacted provision that

interlocutory orders cannot be the subject

matter of revision petitions. This Court for

9

reasons as stated above, in para No. 3 & 4 had

considered the state of affairs prevalent and

came to conclusion that no revision against the

order of framing of charge or order directing

framing of charge would lie. Similarly, a petition

under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. would also not lie.

I am of the opinion that once this Court holds

that a petition under Article 227 would lie, the

result would be as is evident from the above

petitions that every order on charge which

earlier used to be assailed by way of revision

would be assailed in a camouflaged manner

under Article 227 of the Constitution and the

result would be same that proceedings before

the trial court shall not proceed.

26. The decisions on a petition assailing charge

requires going through the voluminous

evidence collected by the CBI, analyzing the

evidence against each accused and then

coming to conclusion whether the accused

was liable to be charged or not. This exercise is

done by Special Judge invariably vide a

detailed speaking order. Each order on charge

of the Special Judge, under Prevention of

Corruption cases, normally runs into 40 to 50

pages where evidence is discussed in detail

and thereafter the order for framing of charge

is made. If this Court entertains petitions under

Article 227 of the Constitution to re-appreciate

the evidence collected by CBI to see if charge

was liable to be framed or, in fact, the Court

would be doing so contrary to the legislative

intent. No court can appreciate arguments

advanced in a case on charge without going

through the entire record. The issues of

jurisdiction and perversity are raised in such

10

petitions only to get the petition admitted. The

issue of jurisdiction is rarely involved. The

perversity of an order can be argued in respect

of any well written judgment because

perversity is such a term which has a vast

meaning and an order which is not considered

by a litigant in its favour is always considered

perverse by him and his counsel. Therefore,

entertaining a petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution against an order on charge would

amount to doing indirectly the same thing

which cannot be done directly, I consider that

no petition under Article 227 can be

entertained.”

(Emphasis added)

10. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment8 reframed the

questions as follows:

“(a) Whether an order framing charge under

the 1988 Act would be treated as an

interlocutory order thereby barring the

exercise of revisional power of this Court?

(b) Whether the language employed in

Section 19 of the 1988 Act which bars the

revision would also bar the exercise of

power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for

all purposes?

(c) Whether the order framing charge can be

assailed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India?”

 

8 Anur Kumar Jain versus CBI 178(2011) DLT 501

11

11. After discussing the law on the point, the Bench concluded:

“(a) An order framing charge under the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an

interlocutory order.

(b) As Section 19(3)(c) clearly bars revision

against an interlocutory order and framing of

charge being an interlocutory order a revision

will not be maintainable.

(c) A petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and a writ petition

preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India are maintainable.

(d) Even if a petition under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure or a writ petition

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is

entertained by the High Court under no

circumstances an order of stay should be

passed regard being had to the prohibition

contained in Section 19(3)(c) of the 1988 Act.

(e) The exercise of power either under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be

sparingly and in exceptional circumstances be

exercised keeping in view the law laid down in

Siya Ram Singh [(1979) 3 SCC 118], Vishesh

Kumar [AIR 1980 SC 892], Khalil Ahmed Bashir

Ahmed [AIR 1988 SC 184, Kamal Nath and Ors.

[AIR 2000 SC 1997 Ranjeet Singh [AIR 2004 SC

3892] and similar line of decisions in the field.

(f) It is settled law that jurisdiction under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under

12

Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot

be exercised as a “cloak of an appeal in

disguise” or to re-appreciate evidence. The

aforesaid proceedings should be used

sparingly with great care, caution,

circumspection and only to prevent grave

miscarriage of justice.”

12. It was held that order framing charge was an interlocutory

order and no Revision Petition under Section 401 read with Section

397(2) Cr.P.C. would lie to the High Court against such order.

Reliance was mainly placed on V.C. Shukla versus State through

CBI 9 . Therein, Section 11A of the Special Courts Act, 1979 was

interpreted by a Bench of four Judges of this Court. The Bench

applied the test in S. Kuppuswami Rao versus the King10. Reliance

was also placed on Satya Narayan Sharma versus State of

Rajasthan11, wherein Section 19 (3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 was the subject matter of consideration.

13. It was, however, held that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

will lie to the High Court even when there is a bar under Section 397

or some other provisions of the Cr.P.C. However, inherent power

 

9 (1980) Suppl. SCC 92 10 (1947) 2 SCR 685 11 (2001) 8 SCC 607

13

could be exercised only when there is abuse of the process of Court

or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of

justice. It must be exercised very sparingly where proceedings have

been initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. The power

should not be exercised against express provision of law. Even

where inherent power is exercised in a rare case, there could be no

stay of trial in a corruption case. Reliance in this regard was mainly

placed on judgments of this Court in Satya Narayan Sharma (supra)

and Navjot Sandhu (supra).

14. As regards a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, it was

held that the said power was part of basic structure of the

Constitution as held in L. Chandra Kumar versus Union of India and

Ors.12 and could not be barred. But the Court would refrain from

passing an order which would run counter to and conflict with an

express intendment contained in Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act.

Reliance was also placed on Chander Shekhar Singh versus Siya

Ram Singh13.

 

12 (1997) 3 SCC 261 13 (1979) 3 SCC 118

14

15. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High

Court was in error in holding that the order framing charge was an

interlocutory order. In any case, since petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution has been held to be

maintainable, there could be no prohibition against interference by

the High Court or the power of the High Court to grant stay in spite of

prohibition under Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act.

16. Learned counsel for the CBI, however, supported the view of

the High Court.

17. We have given due considerations to the rival submissions and

perused the decisions of this Court. Though the question referred

relates to the issue whether order framing charges is an interlocutory

order, we have considered further question as to the approach to

be adopted by the High Court in dealing with the challenge to the

order framing charge. As already noted in para 10, the impugned

order also considered the said question. Learned counsel for the

parties have also addressed the Court on this question.

15

18. It is not necessary to refer to all the decisions cited at the Bar.

Suffice it to say that a Bench of three Judges in Madhu Limaye

(supra) held that legislature has sought to check delay in final

disposal of proceedings in criminal cases by way of a bar to

revisional jurisdiction against an interlocutory order under sub-Section

2 of Section 397 Cr.P.C. At the same time, inherent power of the

High Court is not limited or affected by any other provision. It could

not mean that limitation on exercise of revisional power is to be set

at naught. Inherent power could be used for securing ends of

justice or to check abuse of the process of the Court. This power has

to be exercised very sparingly against a proceeding initiated illegally

or vexatiously or without jurisdiction. The label of the petition is

immaterial. This Court modified the view taken in Amarnath versus

State of Haryana14 and also deviated from the test for interlocutory

order laid down in S. Kuppuswami Rao (supra). We may quote the

following observations in this regard:

“6. The point which falls for determination in this

appeal is squarely covered by a decision of this

Court, to which one of us (Untwalia, J.) was a

 

14 (1977) 4 SCC 137

16

party in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana. But on

a careful consideration of the matter and on

hearing learned Counsel for the parties in this

appeal we thought it advisable to enunciate

and reiterate the view taken by two learned

Judges of this Court in Amar Nath case but in a

somewhat modified and modulated form. …..

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

10. As pointed out in Amar Nath case the

purpose of putting a bar on the power of

revision in relation to any interlocutory order

passed in an appeal, inquiry, trial or other

proceeding, is to bring about expeditious

disposal of the cases finally. More often than

not, the revisional power of the High Court was

resorted to in relation to interlocutory orders

delaying the final disposal of the proceedings.

The Legislature in its wisdom decided to check

this delay by introducing sub-section (2) in

Section 397. On the one hand, a bar has been

put in the way of the High Court (as also of the

Sessions Judge) for exercise of the revisional

power in relation to any interlocutory order, on

the other, the power has been conferred in

almost the same terms as it was in the 1898

Code. On a plain reading of Section 482,

however, it would follow that nothing in the

Code, which would include sub-section (2) of

Section 397 also, “shall be deemed to limit or

affect the inherent powers of the High Court”,

But, if we were to say that the said bar is not to

operate in the exercise of the inherent power

at all, it will be setting at naught one of the

limitations imposed upon the exercise of the

revisional powers. In such a situation, what is

17

the harmonious way out? In our opinion, a

happy solution of this problem would be to say

that the bar provided in sub-section (2) of

Section 397 operates only in exercise of the

revisional power of the High Court, meaning

thereby that the High Court will have no power

of revision in relation to any interlocutory order.

Then in accordance with one of the other

principles enunciated above, the inherent

power will come into play, there being no other

provision in the Code for the redress of the

grievance of the aggrieved party. But then, if

the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory

character which could be corrected in

exercise of the revisional power of the High

Court under the 1898 Code, the High Court will

refuse to exercise its inherent power. But in case

the impugned order clearly brings about a

situation which is an abuse of the process of the

Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of

justice interference by the High Court is

absolutely necessary, then nothing contained

in section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise

of the inherent power by the High Court. But

such cases would be few and far between. The

High Court must exercise the inherent power

very sparingly. One such case would be the

desirability of the quashing of, a criminal

proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as

being without jurisdiction. Take for example a

case where a prosecution is launched under

the Prevention of Corruption Act without a

sanction. then the trial of the accused will be

without jurisdiction and even after his acquittal

a second trial after proper sanction will not be

barred on the doctrine of Autrefois Acquit.

Even assuming, although we shall presently

18

show that it is not so, that in such a case an

order of the Court taking cognizance or issuing

processes is an interlocutory order. does it stand

to reason to say that inherent power of the

High Court cannot be exercised for stopping

the criminal proceeding as early as possible,

instead of harassing the accused upto the end

? The answer is obvious that the bar will not

operate to prevent the abuse of the process of

the Court and/or to secure, the ends of justice.

The label of the petition filed by an aggrieved

party is immaterial. The High Court can

examine the matter in an appropriate case

under its inherent powers. The present case

undoubtedly falls for exercise of the power of

the High Court in accordance with section

482 of the 1973 Code, even assuming, although

not accepting, that invoking the revisional

power of the High Court is impermissible.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

13. …..But in our judgment such an

interpretation and the universal application of

the principle that what is not a final order must

be an interlocutory order is neither warranted

nor justified. If it were so it will render almost

nugatory the revisional power of the Sessions

Court or the High Court conferred on it by

Section 397(1). On such a strict interpretation,

only those orders would be revisable which are

orders passed on the final determination of the

action but are not appealable under Chapter

XXIX of the Code. This does not seem to be the

intention of the Legislature when it retained the

revisional power of the High Court in terms

identical to the one in the 1898 Code. In what

19

cases then the High Court will examine the

legality or the propriety of an order or the

legality of any proceeding of an inferior criminal

court? Is it circumscribed to examine only such

proceeding which is brought for its examination

after the final determination and wherein no

appeal lies? Such cases will be very few and far

between. …………….

…There may be an order passed during the

course of a proceeding which may not be final

in the sense noticed in Kuppuswami case, but,

yet it may not be an interlocutory order — pure

or simple. Some kinds of order may fall in

between the two. By a rule of harmonious

construction, we think that the bar in subsection

(2) of Section 397 is not meant to be

attracted to such kinds of intermediate

orders……”

18. Referring to the judgment in Mohanlal Maganlal Thacker v.

State of Gujarat15, it was held that the test adopted therein that if

reversal of impugned order results in conclusion of proceedings, such

order may not be interlocutory but final order. It was observed :

“15. …….In the majority decision four tests were

culled out from some English decisions. They are

found enumerated at p. 688. One of the tests is

“if the order in question is reversed would the

action have to go on?” Applying that test to the

facts of the instant case it would be noticed

that if the plea of the appellant succeeds and

 

15 (1968) 2 SCR 685 = AIR 1968 SC 733

20

the order of the Sessions Judge is reversed, the

criminal proceeding as initiated and instituted

against him cannot go on. If, however, he loses

on the merits of the preliminary point the

proceeding will go on. Applying the test of

Kuppuswami case such an order will not be a

final order. But applying the fourth test noted at

p. 688 in Mohan Lal case it would be a final

order. The real point of distinction, however, is to

be found at p. 693 in the judgment of Shelat, J.

The passage runs thus:

“As observed in Ramesh v. Gendalal

Motilal Patni[(1966) 3 SCR 198 : AIR 1966

SC 1445] the finality of that order was

not to be judged by co-relating that

order with the controversy in the

complaint viz. whether the appellant

had committed the offence charged

against him therein. The fact that that

controversy still remained alive is

irrelevant.”

19. The principles laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra) still hold the

field and have not been in any manner diluted by decision of four

Judges in V.C. Shukla versus State through CBI16 or by recent three

Judge Bench decision in Girish Kumar Suneja versus Central Bureau

of Investigation17 . Though in V.C. Shukla (supra), order framing

charge was held to be interlocutory order, judgment in Madhu

 

16 (1980) Supp. SCC 92 17 (2017) 14 SCC 809

21

Limaye (supra) taking a contrary view was distinguished in the

context of the statute considered therein. The view in S.

Kuppuswami Rao (supra), was held to have been endorsed in

Mohanlal Maganlal Thacker (supra) though factually in Madhu

Limaye (supra), the said view was explained differently, as already

noted. Thus, in spite of the fact that V.C. Shukla (supra) is a

judgment by Bench of four Judges, it cannot be held that the

principle of Madhu Limaye (supra) does not hold the field. As

regards Girish Kumar Suneja (supra), which is by a Bench of three

Judges, the issue considered was whether order of this Court

directing that no Court other than this Court will stay

investigation/trial in Manohar Lal Sharma versus Principal Secretary

and ors. 18 [Coal Block allocation cases] violated right or remedies of

the affected parties against an order framing charge. It was

observed that the order framing charge being interlocutory order,

the same could not be interfered with under Section 397(2) nor

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 19 It was further held that stay of

 

18 (2014) 9 SCC 516 19 Paras 24,25, 27

22

proceedings could not be granted in PC Act cases even under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.20 It was further observed that though power

under Article 227 is extremely vast, the same cannot be exercised on

the drop of a hat as held in Shalini Shyam Shetty versus Rajendra

Shankar Patil21 as under :

“37. … This reserve and exceptional power of

judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for

grant of relief in individual cases but should be

directed for promotion of public confidence in

the administration of justice in the larger public

interest whereas Article 226 of the Constitution is

meant for protection of individual grievance.

Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be

unfettered but its exercise is subject to high

degree of judicial discipline pointed out

above.”

20. It was observed that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be

exercised only in rarest of rare cases and not otherwise.

38. The Criminal Procedure Code is undoubtedly

a complete code in itself. As has already been

discussed by us, the discretionary jurisdiction

under Section 397(2) CrPC is to be exercised

only in respect of final orders and intermediate

orders. The power under Section 482 CrPC is to

be exercised only in respect of interlocutory

 

20 Para 32 21 (2010) 8 SCC 329

23

orders to give effect to an order passed under

the Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent

abuse of the process of any court or otherwise

to serve the ends of justice. As indicated above,

this power has to be exercised only in the rarest

of rare cases and not otherwise. If that is the

position, and we are of the view that it is so,

resort to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

would be permissible perhaps only in the most

extraordinary case. To invoke the constitutional

jurisdiction of the High Court when the Criminal

Procedure Code restricts it in the interest of a

fair and expeditious trial for the benefit of the

accused person, we find it difficult to accept the

proposition that since Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution are available to an accused

person, these provisions should be resorted to in

cases that are not the rarest of rare but for trifling

issues.

21. Reliance was also placed on judgment by seven Judge Bench

in Kartar Singh versus State of Punjab22 laying down as follows :

“40. …If the High Courts entertain bail

applications invoking their extraordinary

jurisdiction under Article 226 and pass orders,

then the very scheme and object of the Act and

the intendment of Parliament would be

completely defeated and frustrated. But at the

same time it cannot be said that the High

Courts have no jurisdiction. Therefore, we totally

agree with the view taken by this Court in Abdul

Hamid Haji Mohammed [(1994) 2 SCC 664] that

if the High Court is inclined to entertain any

 

22 (1994) 3 SCC 569

24

application under Article 226, that power should

be exercised most sparingly and only in rare

and appropriate cases in extreme

circumstances. What those rare cases are and

what would be the circumstances that would

justify the entertaining of applications under

Article 226 cannot be put in straitjacket.”

22. It was further observed that no stay could be granted in PC Act

cases in view of bar contained in Section 19(3)(c). The relevant

observations are :

“64. A reading of Section 19(3) of the PC Act

indicates that it deals with three situations: (i)

Clause (a) deals a situation where a final

judgment and sentence has been delivered by

the Special Judge. We are not concerned with

this situation. (ii) Clause (b) deals with a stay of

proceedings under the PC Act in the event of

any error, omission or irregularity in the grant of

sanction by the authority concerned to

prosecute the accused person. It is made clear

that no court shall grant a stay of proceedings

on such a ground except if the court is satisfied

that the error, omission or irregularity has

resulted in a failure of justice—then and only

then can the court grant a stay of proceedings

under the PC Act. (iii) Clause (c) provides for a

blanket prohibition against a stay of

proceedings under the PC Act even if there is a

failure of justice [subject of course to Clause

(b)]. It mandates that no court shall stay

proceedings “on any other ground” that is to

say any ground other than a ground relatable

25

to the error, omission or irregularity in the

sanction resulting in a failure of justice.

65. A conjoint reading of clause (b) and clause

(c) of Section 19(3) of the PC Act makes it is

clear that a stay of proceedings could be

granted only and only if there is an error,

omission or irregularity in the sanction granted

for a prosecution and that error, omission or

irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice.

There is no other situation that is contemplated

for the grant of a stay of proceedings under the

PC Act on any other ground whatsoever, even if

there is a failure of justice. Clause (c)

additionally mandates a prohibition on the

exercise of revision jurisdiction in respect of any

interlocutory order passed in any trial such as

those that we have already referred to. In our

opinion, the provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of

Section 19(3) of the PC Act read together are

quite clear and do not admit of any ambiguity

or the need for any further interpretation.”

23. We may also refer to the observations of the Constitution Bench

in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani versus Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay

and Anr.23 about the nature of inherent power of the High Court:

“The inherent powers of the High Court preserved

by Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal

Procedure are thus vested in it by “law” within the

meaning of Art. 21. The procedure for invoking the

inherent powers is regulated by rules framed by

 

23 [1967] 3 SCR 926

26

the High Court. The power to make such rules is

conferred on the High Court by the Constitution.

The rules previously in force were contained in

force by Article 372 of the Constitution.”

24. As rightly noted in the impugned judgment, a Bench of seven

Judges in L.Chandra Kumar (supra) held that power of the High

Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 was part of the basic

structure of the Constitution.

25. Thus, even though in dealing with different situations, seemingly

conflicting observations may have been made while holding that

the order framing charge was interlocutory order and was not liable

to be interfered with under Section 397(2) or even under Section 482

Cr.P.C., the principle laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra) still holds

the field. Order framing charge may not be held to be purely a

interlocutory order and can in a given situation be interfered with

under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the

Constitution which is a constitutional provision but the power of the

High Court to interfere with an order framing charge and to grant

stay is to be exercised only in an exceptional situation.

27

26. We have thus no hesitation in concluding that the High Court

has jurisdiction in appropriate case to consider the challenge

against an order framing charge and also to grant stay but how

such power is to be exercised and when stay ought to be granted

needs to be considered further.

27. As observed in Girish Kumar Suneja (supra) in the PC Act cases,

the intention of legislature is expeditious conclusion of trial on day-today

basis without any impediment through the stay of proceedings

and this concern must be respected. This Court also noted the

proviso to Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. added by Section 22(d) of the PC

Act that a revisional court shall not ordinarily call for the record of

proceedings. If record is called, the Special Judge may not be able

to proceed with the trial which will stand indirectly stayed. The right

of the accused has to be considered vis-à-vis the interest of the

society. As already noted, the bench of seven Judges in Kartar

Singh (supra) held that even constitutional power of the High Court

under Article 226 which was very wide ought to be used with

circumspection in accordance with judicial consideration and well

28

established principles. The power should be exercised sparingly in

rare and extreme circumstances.

28. It is well accepted that delay in a criminal trial, particularly in

the PC Act cases, has deleterious effect on the administration of

justice in which the society has a vital interest. Delay in trials affects

the faith in Rule of Law and efficacy of the legal system. It affects

social welfare and development. Even in civil or tax cases it has

been laid down that power to grant stay has to be exercised with

restraint. Mere prima facie case is not enough. Party seeking stay

must be put to terms and stay should not be incentive to delay. The

order granting stay must show application of mind. The power to

grant stay is coupled with accountability24.

30. Wherever stay is granted, a speaking order must be passed

showing that the case was of exceptional nature and delay on

account of stay will not prejudice the interest of speedy trial in a

 

24 Siliguri Municipality vs. Amalendu Das (1984) 2 SCC 436 para 4; Assistant

Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 260 para 5;

Union Territory of Pondicherry and Ors. vs. P.V. Suresh and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 70 para 15; and State of West

Bengal and Ors. vs. Calcutta Hardware Stores and Ors. (1986) 2 SCC 203 para 5

29

corruption case. Once stay is granted, proceedings should not be

adjourned and concluded within two-three months.

31. The wisdom of legislature and the object of final and

expeditious disposal of a criminal proceeding cannot be ignored. In

exercise of its power the High Court is to balance the freedom of an

individual on the one hand and security of the society on the other.

Only in case of patent illegality or want of jurisdiction the High Court

may exercise its jurisdiction. The acknowledged experience is that

where challenge to an order framing charge is entertained, the

matter remains pending for long time which defeats the interest of

justice.

32. We have already quoted the judicial experience as noted in

the earlier judgments in Para 9 above that trial of corruption cases is

not permitted to proceed on account of challenge to the order of

charge before the High Courts. Once stay is granted, disposal of a

petition before the High Court takes long time. Consideration of the

challenge against an order of framing charge may not require

meticulous examination of voluminous material which may be in the

30

nature of a mini trial. Still, the Court is at times called upon to do so

inspite of law being clear that at the stage of charge the Court has

only to see as to whether material on record reasonably connects

the accused with the crime. Constitution Bench of this Court in

Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab25 observed :

100. However, there is a series of cases wherein

this Court while dealing with the provisions of

Sections 227, 228, 239, 240, 241, 242 and 245

CrPC, has consistently held that the court at the

stage of framing of the charge has to apply its mind

to the question whether or not there is any ground

for presuming the commission of an offence by the

accused. The court has to see as to whether the

material brought on record reasonably connect the

accused with the offence. Nothing more is required

to be enquired into. While dealing with the

aforesaid provisions, the test of prima facie case is

to be applied. The court has to find out whether the

materials offered by the prosecution to be adduced

as evidence are sufficient for the court to proceed

against the accused further. (Vide State of

Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy[(1977) 2 SCC 699], All

India Bank Officers’ Confederation v. Union of

India[(1989) 4 SCC 90] Stree Atyachar Virodhi

Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia [(1989) 1 SCC

715] State of M.P. v. Krishna Chandra Saksena

[(1996) 11 SCC 439] and State of M.P. v. Mohanlal

Soni [(2000) 6 SCC 338]

 

25 (2014) 3 SCC 92

31

101. In Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of

Maharashtra [(2002) 2 SCC 135] this Court while

dealing with the provisions of Sections 227 and 228

CrPC, placed a very heavy reliance on the earlier

judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Prafulla

Kumar Samal [(1979) 3 SCC 4] and held that while

considering the question of framing the charges,

the court may weigh the evidence for the limited

purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie

case against the accused has been made out and

whether the materials placed before the court

disclose grave suspicion against the accused which

has not been properly explained. In such an

eventuality, the court is justified in framing the

charges and proceeding with the trial. The court

has to consider the broad probabilities of the case,

the total effect of the evidence and the documents

produced before the court but the court should not

make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the

matter and weigh evidence as if it is conducting a

trial.

102. In Suresh v. State of Maharashtra[(2001) 3

SCC 703], this Court after taking note of the earlier

judgments in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi

v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya[(1990) 4 SCC 76] and

State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan

Maharaj[(1997) 4 SCC 393], held as under:

(Suresh case, SCC p. 707, para 9)

“9. … at the stage of Sections 227 and

228 the court is required to evaluate the

material and documents on record with

a view to finding out if the facts

emerging therefrom taken at their face

value disclose the existence of all the

ingredients constituting the alleged

offence. The court may, for this limited

purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot

be expected even at that initial stage to

accept all that the prosecution states as

the gospel truth even if it is opposed to

common sense or the broad probabilities

of the case. Therefore, at the stage of

framing of the charge the court has to

32

consider the material with a view to find

out if there is ground **for presuming

that the accused has committed the

offence** or that there is not sufficient

ground for proceeding against him

and** not for the purpose of arriving at

the conclusion that it is not likely to lead

to a conviction**. (Priya Sharan case,

SCC p. 397, para 8)”

(emphasis in original)

103. Similarly in State of Bihar v. Ramesh

Singh[(1997) 4 SCC 39], while dealing with the

issue, this Court held: (SCC p. 42, para 4)

“4. … If the evidence which the

prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove

the guilt of the accused even if fully

accepted before it is challenged in crossexamination

or rebutted by the defence

evidence, if any, cannot show that the

accused committed the offence, then

there will be no sufficient ground for

proceeding with the trial.”

33. If contrary to the above law, at the stage of charge, the High

Court adopts the approach of weighing probabilities and reappreciate

the material, it may be certainly a time consuming

exercise. The legislative policy of expeditious final disposal of the

trial is thus, hampered. Thus, even while reiterating the view that

there is no bar to jurisdiction of the High Court to consider a

challenge against an order of framing charge in exceptional

situation for correcting a patent error of lack of jurisdiction, exercise

33

of such jurisdiction has to be limited to rarest of rare cases. Even if

a challenge to order framing charge is entertained, decision of

such a petition should not be delayed. Though no mandatory time

limit can be fixed, normally it should not exceed two-three months.

If stay is granted, it should not normally be unconditional or of

indefinite duration. Appropriate conditions may be imposed so that

the party in whose favour stay is granted is accountable if court

finally finds no merit in the matter and the other side suffers loss and

injustice. To give effect to the legislative policy and the mandate of

Article 21 for speedy justice in criminal cases, if stay is granted,

matter should be taken on day-to-day basis and concluded within

two-three months. Where the matter remains pending for longer

period, the order of stay will stand vacated on expiry of six months,

unless extension is granted by a speaking order showing

extraordinary situation where continuing stay was to be preferred to

the final disposal of trial by the trial Court. This timeline is being fixed

in view of the fact that such trials are expected to be concluded

normally in one to two years.

34

34. In Imtiaz Ahmad versus State of U.P. 26 this Court after

considering a report noted:

“(a) As high as 9% of the cases have

completed more than twenty years since the

date of stay order.

(b) Roughly 21% of the cases have completed

more than ten years.

(c) Average pendency per case (counted

from the date of stay order till 26-7-2010) works

out to be around 7.4 years.

(d) Charge-sheet was found to be the most

prominent stage where the cases were stayed

with almost 32% of the cases falling under this

category. The next two prominent stages are

found to be ‘appearance’ and ‘summons’,

with each comprising 19% of the total number

of cases. If ‘appearance’ and ‘summons’ are

considered interchangeable, then they would

collectively account for the maximum of stay

orders.”

After noting the above scenario, the Court directed :

“55. Certain directions are given to the High

Courts for better maintenance of the rule of

law and better administration of justice:

While analysing the data in aggregated

form, this Court cannot overlook the most

important factor in the administration of

 

26 (2012) 2 SCC 688

35

justice. The authority of the High Court to order

stay of investigation pursuant to lodging of FIR,

or trial in deserving cases is unquestionable. But

this Court is of the view that the exercise of this

authority carries with it the responsibility to

expeditiously dispose of the case. The power

to grant stay of investigation and trial is a very

extraordinary power given to the High Courts

and the same power is to be exercised

sparingly only to prevent an abuse of the

process and to promote the ends of justice. It is

therefore clear that:

(i) Such an extraordinary power has to be

exercised with due caution and

circumspection.

(ii) Once such a power is exercised, the High

Court should not lose sight of the case where it

has exercised its extraordinary power of

staying investigation and trial.

(iii) The High Court should make it a point of

finally disposing of such proceedings as early

as possible but preferably within six months

from the date the stay order is issued.

56. It is true that this Court has no power of

superintendence over the High Court as the

High Court has over District Courts under

Article 227 of the Constitution. Like this Court,

the High Court is equally a superior court of

record with plenary jurisdiction. Under our

Constitution the High Court is not a court

subordinate to this Court. This Court, however,

enjoys appellate powers over the High Court

as also some other incidental powers. But as

the last court and in exercise of this Court’s

power to do complete justice which includes

36

within it the power to improve the

administration of justice in public interest, this

Court gives the aforesaid guidelines for

sustaining common man’s faith in the rule of

law and the justice delivery system, both being

inextricably linked.”

35. In view of above, situation of proceedings remaining pending

for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is

required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal

cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are

held up. At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account

of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and

proceedings are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy this,

situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending

cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is

operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from

today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is

extended. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will

end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar

extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must

show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing

37

the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial

Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is

produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay

so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence

unless order of extension of stay is produced.

36. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not

purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High

Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under

Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution.

However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the

legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the

same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the

challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of

rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to reappreciate

the matter. Even where such challenge is entertained

and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day

basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period.

Though no mandatory time limit may be fixed, the decision may not

38

exceed two-three months normally. If it remains pending longer,

duration of stay should not exceed six months, unless extension is

granted by a specific speaking order, as already indicated.

Mandate of speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as

other cases where at trial stage proceedings are stayed by the

higher court i.e. the High Court or a court below the High Court, as

the case may be. In all pending matters before the High Courts or

other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases,

where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will

automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by

a speaking order on above parameters. Same course may also be

adopted by civil and criminal appellate/revisional courts under the

jurisdiction of the High Courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of

above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other

intimation unless express order extending stay is produced.

37. The High Courts may also issue instructions to this effect and

monitor the same so that civil or criminal proceedings do not remain

pending for unduly period at the trial stage.

39

38. The question referred stands answered. The matter along with

other connected matters, may now be listed before an appropriate

Bench as first matter, subject to overnight part-heard, on

Wednesday, the 18th April, 2018.

A copy of this order be sent to all the High Courts for necessary

action.

………………………………..J.

(Adarsh Kumar Goel)

………………………………..J.

(Navin Sinha)

New Delhi;

March 28, 2018.

Note: Highlighting in quotations is by us

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1375-1376 OF 2013

ASIAN RESURFACING OF

ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. & ANR. …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION …RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1383 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1377 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1382 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1394 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1384 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1393 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1386-1387 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1385 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1406 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1396 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1395 OF 2013

2

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1391 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1389 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1388 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1398 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1397 OF 2013

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.2610 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1390 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1399 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1402 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1400 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1401 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1404 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1403 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1405 OF 2013

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6835 OF 2013

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6834 OF 2013

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6837 OF 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.388 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.10050-10051 OF 2013

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.9652-9653 OF 2013

3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.234 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.5678 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.1451 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.1399 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.2508 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.2970 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.2507 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.2939 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.2977 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.4709 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6372 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6391 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.6691-6692 OF 2014

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9363 OF 2017

J U D G M E N T

R.F. Nariman, J. (Concurring)

1. The cancer of corruption has, as we all know, eaten into

the vital organs of the State. Cancer is a dreaded disease

which, if not nipped in the bud in time, causes death. In British

4

India, the Penal Code dealt with the cancer of corruption by

public servants in Chapter IX thereof. Even before

independence, these provisions were found to be inadequate to

deal with the rapid onset of this disease as a result of which the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was enacted. This Act was

amended twice – once by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,

1952 and a second time by the Anti-Corruption Laws

(Amendment) Act, 1964, based on the recommendations of the

Santhanam Committee. A working of the 1947 Act showed that

it was found to be inadequate to deal with the disease of

corruption effectively enough. For this reason, the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 was enacted (hereinafter referred to as

“the Act”). The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Act

is revealing and is set out hereinbelow:

“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

1. The Bill is intended to make the existing anticorruption

laws more effective by widening their

coverage and by strengthening the provisions.

2. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was

amended in 1964 based on the recommendations of

the Santhanam Committee. There are provisions in

Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code to deal with

public servants and those who abet them by way of

criminal misconduct. There are also provisions in

the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, to

5

enable attachment of ill-gotten wealth obtained

through corrupt means, including from transferees

of such wealth. The Bill seeks to incorporate all

these provisions with modifications so as to make

the provisions more effective in combating

corruption among public servants.

3. The Bill, inter alia, envisages widening the

scope of the definition of the expression “public

servant”, incorporation of offences under Sections

161 to 165-A of the Indian Penal Code,

enhancement of penalties provided for these

offences and incorporation of a provision that the

order of the trial court upholding the grant of

sanction for prosecution would be final if it has not

already been challenged and the trial has

commenced. In order to expedite the proceedings,

provisions for day-to-day trial of cases and

prohibitory provisions with regard to grant of stay

and exercise of powers of revision on interlocutory

orders have also been included.

4. Since the provisions of Sections 161 to 165-A

are incorporated in the proposed legislation with an

enhanced punishment, it is not necessary to retain

those sections in the Indian Penal Code.

Consequently, it is proposed to delete those

sections with the necessary saving provision.

5. The notes on clauses explain in detail the

provisions of the Bill.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

2. Section 2(c) defines “public servant”. The definition is

extremely wide and includes within its ken even arbitrators or

other persons to whom any cause or matter has been referred

for decision or report by a court of justice or by a competent

6

public authority – (See Section 2(c)(vi)). Also included are office

bearers of registered co-operative societies engaged in

agriculture, industry, trade or banking, who receive financial aid

from the Government – (See Section 2(c)(ix)). Office bearers or

employees of educational, scientific, social, cultural or other

institutions in whatever manner established, receiving financial

assistance from the Government or local or other public

authorities are also included (see Section 2(c)(xii)). The two

explanations to Section 2(c) are also revealing – whereas

Explanation 1 states that in order to be a public servant, one

need not be appointed by Government, Explanation 2 refers to

a de facto, as opposed to a de jure, public servant, discounting

whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that

“situation”.

3. Section 4(4) is of great importance in deciding these

appeals, and is set out hereinbelow:

“4. Cases triable by special Judges.—

(1) – (3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a special Judge shall,

as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on

day-to-day basis.”

7

Section 22 applies the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

subject to modifications which ensure timely disposal of cases,

under this special Act. Section 22 reads as under:

“22. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to

apply subject to certain modifications.—

The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure

1973, shall in their application to any proceeding in

relation to an offence punishable under this Act

have effect as if,—

(a) in sub-section (1) of Section 243, for the words

“The accused shall then be called upon,” the words

“The accused shall then be required to give in

writing at once or within such time as the court may

allow, a list of the persons (if any) whom he

proposes to examine as his witnesses and of the

documents (if any) on which he proposes to rely

and he shall then be called upon” had been

substituted;

(b) in sub-section (2) of Section 309, after the third

proviso, the following proviso had been inserted,

namely: —

“Provided also that the proceeding shall not be

adjourned or postponed merely on the ground that

an application under Section 397 has been made by

a party to the proceeding.”;

(c) after sub-section (2) of Section 317, the following

sub-section had been inserted, namely:—

“(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection

(1) or sub-section (2), the Judge may, if he

thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him,

proceed with inquiry or trial in the absence of the

accused or his pleader and record the evidence of

8

any witness subject to the right of the accused to

recall the witness for cross-examination.”;

(d) in sub-section (1) of Section 397, before the

Explanation, the following proviso had been

inserted, namely:—

“Provided that where the powers under this section

are exercised by a court on an application made by

a party to such proceedings, the court shall not

ordinarily call for the record of the proceedings—

(a) without giving the other party an opportunity of

showing cause why the record should not be called

for; or

(b) if it is satisfied that an examination of the record

of the proceedings may be made from the certified

copies.”

Under Section 27, powers of appeal and revision, conferred by

the Code of Criminal Procedure, are to be exercised “subject to

the provisions of this Act”. Section 27 reads as follows:

“27. Appeal and revision.—

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the High Court

may exercise, so far as they may be applicable, all

the powers of appeal and revision conferred by the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on a High court

as if the Court of the special Judge were a Court of

Session trying 12 cases within the local limits of the

High Court.”

4. The bone of contention in these appeals is the true

interpretation of Section 19(3)(c) of the Act, and whether

9

superior constitutional courts, namely, the High Courts in this

country, are bound to follow Section 19(3)(c) in petitions filed

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. An

allied question is whether the inherent powers of High Courts

are available to stay proceedings under the Act under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 19 reads as

follows:

“19. Previous sanction necessary for

prosecution.—

(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence

punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15

alleged to have been committed by a public servant,

except with the previous sanction, [save as

otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas

Act, 2013] —

(a) in the case of a person who is employed in

connection with the affairs of the Union and is not

removable from his office save by or with the

sanction of the Central Government, of that

Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed in

connection with the affairs of a State and is not

removable from his office save by or with the

sanction of the State Government, of that

Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority

competent to remove him from his office.

(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt

arises as to whether the previous sanction as

required under sub-section (1) should be given by

the Central Government or the State Government or

any 9 other authority, such sanction shall be given

10

by that Government or authority which would have

been competent to remove the public servant from

his office at the time when the offence was alleged

to have been committed.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 —

(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a

Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a

Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the

ground of the absence of, or any error, omission,

irregularity in, the sanction required under subsection

(1), unless in the opinion of that court, a

failure of justice has, in fact, been occasioned

thereby;

(b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this

Act on the ground of any error, omission or

irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority,

unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or

irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;

(c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this

Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise

the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory

order passed in inquiry, trial, appeal or other

proceedings.

(4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the

absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in,

such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a

failure of justice the Court shall have regard to the

fact whether the objection could and should have

been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.

Explanation. — For the purposes of this section, —

(a) error includes competency of the authority to

grant sanction;

(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes

reference to any requirement that the prosecution

shall be at the instance of a specified authority or

with the sanction of a specified person or any

requirement of a similar nature.”

11

5. On a reference made to a 2-Judge Bench in the Delhi

High Court, the learned Chief Justice framed, what he

described as, “three facets which emanate for consideration”,

as follows:

“(a) Whether an order framing charge under the

1988 Act would be treated as an interlocutory order

thereby barring the exercise of revisional power of

this Court?

(b) Whether the language employed in Section 19 of

the 1988 Act which bars the revision would also bar

the exercise of power under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C. for all purposes?

(c) Whether the order framing charge can be

assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India?”

Answers given to the “three facets” are in paragraph 33 as

follows:

“33. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we proceed

to answer the reference on following terms:

(a) An order framing charge under the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order.

(b) As Section 19(3)(c) clearly bars revision against

an interlocutory order and framing of charge being

an interlocutory order a revision will not be

maintainable.

(c) A petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and a writ petition preferred

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are

maintainable.

(d) Even if a petition under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure or a writ petition under Article

12

227 of the Constitution of India is entertained by the

High Court under no circumstances an order of stay

should be passed regard being had to the

prohibition contained in Section 19(3)(c) of the 1988

Act.

(e) The exercise of power either under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should

be sparingly and in exceptional circumstances be

exercised keeping in view the law laid down in Siya

Ram Singh (supra), Vishesh Kumar (supra), Khalil

Ahmed Bashir Ahmed (supra), Kamal Nath &

Others (supra) Ranjeet Singh (supra) and similar

line of decisions in the field.

(f) It is settled law that jurisdiction under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot

be exercised as a “cloak of an appeal in disguise” or

to re- appreciate evidence. The aforesaid

proceedings should be used sparingly with great

care, caution, circumspection and only to prevent

grave miscarriage of justice.”

6. The arguments on both sides have been set out in the

judgment of brother Goel, J. and need not be reiterated.

7. A perusal of Section 19(3) of the Act would show that the

interdict against stay of proceedings under this Act on the

ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction

granted by the authority is lifted if the Court is satisfied that the

error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice.

13

Having said this in clause (b) of Section 19(3), clause (c) says

that no Court shall stay proceedings under this Act on any other

ground. The contention on behalf of the Appellants before us is

that the expression “on any other ground” is referable only to

grounds which relate to sanction and not generally to all

proceedings under the Act. Whereas learned counsel for the

Respondents argues that these are grounds referable to the

proceedings under this Act and there is no warrant to add

words not found in sub-section (c), namely, that these grounds

should be relatable to sanction only.

8. We are of the view that the Respondents are correct in

this submission for the following reasons:

(i) Section 19(3)(b) subsumes all grounds which are

relatable to sanction granted. This is clear from the

word “any” making it clear that whatever be the

error, omission or irregularity in sanction granted, all

grounds relatable thereto are covered.

(ii) This is further made clear by Explanation (a), which

defines an “error” as including competency of the

authority to grant sanction.

14

(iii) The words “in the sanction granted by the authority”

contained in sub-clause (b) are conspicuous by their

absence in sub-clause(c), showing thereby that it is

the proceedings under the Act that are referred to.

(iv) The expression “on any other ground”, therefore,

refers to and relates to all grounds that are available

in proceedings under the Act other than grounds

which relate to sanction granted by the authority.

(v) On the assumption that there is an ambiguity, and

that there are two views possible, the view which

most accords with the object of the Act, and which

makes the Act workable, must necessarily be the

controlling view. It is settled law that even penal

statutes are governed not only by their literal

language, but also by the object sought to be

achieved by Parliament. (See Ms. Eera through

Dr. Manjula Krippendorf v. State (Govt. of NCT

of Delhi) and Anr., 2017 SCC Online SC 787 at

paragraphs 134-140).

15

(vi) In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977)

4 SCC 551 at 558, this Court held, “It has been

pointed out repeatedly, vide for example, The River

Wear Commissioners v. William Adamson (1876-

77) 2 AC 743 and R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The

Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628, that although the

words occurring in a particular statute are plain and

unambiguous, they have to be interpreted in a

manner which would fit in the context of the other

provisions of the statute and bring about the real

intention of the Legislature”. As the Statement of

Objects and Reasons extracted hereinabove makes

it clear, Section 19(3)(c) is to be read with Section

4(4) and Section 22, all of which make it clear that

cases under the Act have to be decided with utmost

despatch and without any glitches on the way in the

form of interlocutory stay orders.1

1 Under Section 22(a), Section 243(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is tightened up

by requiring the accused to give in writing, at once or within such time as the Court may

allow, a list of persons whom he proposes to examine as witnesses and documents on

which he proposes to rely, so as to continue with the trial with utmost despatch.

Similarly, in sub-clause (b) of Section 22, under Section 309 a fourth proviso is inserted

16

(vii) It has been argued on behalf of the Appellants that

sub-section (4) of Section 19 would make it clear

that the subject matter of Section 19, including subsection

(3), is sanction and sanction alone. This

argument is fallacious for the simple reason that the

subject matter of sub-section (4) is only in the

nature of a proviso to Section 19(3)(a) and (b),

making it clear that the ground for stay qua sanction

having occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice

 

ensuring that there shall be no adjournment merely on the ground that an application

under Section 397 has been made by a party to the proceedings. Under sub-clause (c)

of Section 22, a Judge may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 317(1) and

(2), if he thinks fit and for good reason, proceed with the enquiry or trial in the absence

of the accused or his pleader and record the evidence of any witness, subject to the

right of the accused to recall the witness for cross-examination. This again can be done

so that there is no delay in either the enquiry or trial proceedings under the Act. Insofar

as sub-clause (d) is concerned, this Court in Girish Kumar Suneja v. C.B.I., (2017) 14 SCC

809 at 847 has held:

“By adding the proviso to Section 397(1) CrPC, Parliament has made it

clear that it would be appropriate not to call for the records of the case

before the Special Judge even when the High Court exercises its revision

jurisdiction. The reason for this quite clearly is that once the records are

called for, the Special Judge cannot proceed with the trial. With a view

to ensure that the accused who has invoked the revision jurisdiction of

the High Court is not prejudiced and at the same time the trial is not

indirectly stayed or otherwise impeded, Parliament has made it clear

that the examination of the record of the Special Judge may also be

made on the basis of certified copies of the record. Quite clearly, the

intention of Parliament is that there should not be any impediment in

the trial of a case under the PC Act.”

17

should be taken at the earliest, and if not so taken,

would be rejected on this ground alone.

(viii) Section 19(3)(c) became necessary to make it

clear that proceedings under the Act can be stayed

only in the eventuality of an error, omission or

irregularity in sanction granted, resulting in failure

of justice, and for no other reason. It was for this

reason that it was also necessary to reiterate in

the language of Section 397(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, that in all cases, other than

those covered by Section 19(3)(b), no court shall

exercise the power of revision in relation to

interlocutory orders that may be passed. It is also

significant to note that the reach of this part of

Section 19(3)(c) is at every stage of the proceeding,

that is inquiry, trial, appeal or otherwise, making it

clear that, in consonance with the object sought to

be achieved, prevention of corruption trials are not

only to be heard by courts other than ordinary

courts, but disposed of as expeditiously as possible,

18

as otherwise corrupt public servants would continue

to remain in office and be cancerous to society at

large, eating away at the fabric of the nation.

9. The question as to whether the inherent power of a High

Court would be available to stay a trial under the Act

necessarily leads us to an inquiry as to whether such inherent

power sounds in constitutional, as opposed to statutory law.

First and foremost, it must be appreciated that the High Courts

are established by the Constitution and are courts of record

which will have all powers of such courts, including the power to

punish contempt of themselves (See Article 215). The High

Court, being a superior court of record, is entitled to consider

questions regarding its own jurisdiction when raised before it.

In an instructive passage by a Constitution Bench of this Court

in In re Special Reference 1 of 1964, (1965) 1 SCR 413 at

499, Gajendragadkar, C.J. held:

“Besides, in the case of a superior Court of Record,

it is for the court to consider whether any matter

falls within its jurisdiction or not. Unlike a Court of

limited jurisdiction, the superior Court is entitled to

determine for itself questions about its own

jurisdiction. “Prima facie”, says Halsbury, “no matter

19

is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a

superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so,

while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior

court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the

proceedings that the particular matter is within the

cognizance of the particular court” [Halsbury’s Law

of England, Vol. 9, p. 349].”

10. Also, in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. Assistant Collector of

Customs, 1967 SCR (3) 926 at 930-931, this Court had

occasion to deal with the inherent power of the High Court

under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898,

which is equivalent to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. It was held that the said Section did not

confer any power, but only declared that nothing in the Code

shall be deemed to limit or affect the existing inherent powers of

the High Court. The Court then went on to hold:

“The proviso to the article is not material and need

not be read. The article enacts that the jurisdiction

of the existing High Courts and the powers of the

judges thereof in relation to administration of justice

“shall be” the same as immediately before the

commencement of the Constitution. The

Constitution confirmed and re-vested in the High

Court all its existing powers and jurisdiction

including its inherent powers, and its power to make

rules. When the Constitution or any enacted law has

embraced and confirmed the inherent powers and

jurisdiction of the High Court which previously

existed, that power and jurisdiction has the sanction

20

of an enacted “law” within the meaning of Art. 21 as

explained in A. K. Gopalan’s case (1950 SCR 88).

The inherent powers of the High Court preserved by

Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure are

thus vested in it by “law” within the meaning of Art.

21. The procedure for invoking the inherent powers

is regulated by rules framed by the High Court. The

power to make such rules is conferred on the High

Court by the Constitution. The rules previously in

force were continued in force by Article 372 of the

Constitution. The order of the High Court canceling

the bail and depriving the appellant of his personal

liberty is according to procedure established by law

and is not violative of Art. 21.”

11. It is thus clear that the inherent power of a Court set up by

the Constitution is a power that inheres in such Court because

it is a superior court of record, and not because it is conferred

by the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is a power vested by

the Constitution itself, inter alia, under Article 215 as

aforestated. Also, as such High Courts have the power, nay,

the duty to protect the fundamental rights of citizens under

Article 226 of the Constitution, the inherent power to do justice

in cases involving the liberty of the citizen would also sound in

Article 21 of the Constitution. This being the constitutional

position, it is clear that Section 19(3)(c) cannot be read as a

ban on the maintainability of a petition filed before the High

21

Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

non-obstante clause in Section 19(3) applying only to the Code

of Criminal Procedure. The judgment of this Court in Satya

Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 8 SCC 607 at

paragraphs 14 and 15 does not, therefore, lay down the correct

position in law. Equally, in paragraph 17 of the said judgment,

despite the clarification that proceedings can be “adapted” in

appropriate cases, the Court went on to hold that there is a

blanket ban of stay of trials and that, therefore, Section 482,

even as adapted, cannot be used for the aforesaid purpose.

This again is contrary to the position in law as laid down

hereinabove. This case, therefore, stands overruled.

12. At this juncture it is important to consider the 3-Judge

bench decision in Madhu Limaye (supra). A 3-Judge bench of

this Court decided that a Section 482 petition under the Code of

Criminal Procedure would be maintainable against a

Sessions Judge order framing a charge against the appellant

under Section 500 of the Penal Code, despite the prohibition

contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This was held on two grounds. First, that even if Section 397(1)

22

was out of the way because of the prohibition contained in

Section 397(2), the inherent power of the Court under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be available.

This was held after referring to Amar Nath v. State of

Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137, which was a 2-Judge Bench

decision, which decided that the inherent power contained in

Section 482 would not be available to defeat the bar contained

in Section 397(2). The 3-Judge referred to the judgment in

Amar Nath (supra) and said:

“7. For the reasons stated hereinafter we think that

the statement of the law apropos Point No. 1 is not

quite accurate and needs some modulation. But we

are going to reaffirm the decision of the Court on the

second point.”

(at page 554)

This Court, in an important paragraph, then held:

“10. As pointed out in Amar Nath case the purpose

of putting a bar on the power of revision in relation

to any interlocutory order passed in an appeal,

inquiry, trial or other proceeding, is to bring about

expeditious disposal of the cases finally. More often

than not, the revisional power of the High Court was

resorted to in relation to interlocutory orders

delaying the final disposal of the proceedings. The

Legislature in its wisdom decided to check this

delay by introducing sub-section (2) in Section 397.

On the one hand, a bar has been put in the way of

the High Court (as also of the Sessions Judge) for

exercise of the revisional power in relation to any

23

interlocutory order, on the other, the power has

been conferred in almost the same terms as it was

in the 1898 Code. On a plain reading of Section

482, however, it would follow that nothing in the

Code, which would include sub-section (2) of

Section 397 also, “shall be deemed to limit or affect

the inherent powers of the High Court”, But, if we

were to say that the said bar is not to operate in the

exercise of the inherent power at all, it will be setting

at naught one of the limitations imposed upon the

exercise of the revisional powers. In such a

situation, what is the harmonious way out? In our

opinion, a happy solution of this problem would be

to say that the bar provided in sub-section (2) of

Section 397 operates only in exercise of the

revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby

that the High Court will have no power of revision in

relation to any interlocutory order. Then in

accordance with one of the other principles

enunciated above, the inherent power will come into

play, there being no other provision in the Code for

the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party.

But then, if the order assailed is purely of an

interlocutory character which could be corrected in

exercise of the revisional power of the High Court

under the 1898 Code, the High Court will refuse to

exercise its inherent power. But in case the

impugned order clearly brings about a situation

which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for

the purpose of securing the ends of justice

interference by the High Court is absolutely

necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2)

can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power

by the High Court. But such cases would be few

and far between. The High Court must exercise the

inherent power very sparingly. One such case

would be the desirability of the quashing of a

criminal proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or

as being without jurisdiction. Take for example a

case where a prosecution is launched under the

24

Prevention of Corruption Act without a sanction,

then the trial of the accused will be without

jurisdiction and even after his acquittal a second

trial, after proper sanction will not be barred on the

doctrine of autrefois acquit. Even assuming,

although we shall presently show that it is not so,

that in such a case an order of the Court taking

cognizance or issuing processes is an interlocutory

order, does it stand to reason to say that inherent

power of the High Court cannot be exercised for

stopping the criminal proceeding as early as

possible, instead of harassing the accused up to the

end? The answer is obvious that the bar will not

operate to prevent the abuse of the process of the

Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. The label

of the petition filed by an aggrieved party is

immaterial. The High Court can examine the matter

in an appropriate case under its inherent powers.

The present case undoubtedly falls for exercise of

the power of the High Court in accordance with

Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even assuming,

although not accepting, that invoking the revisional

power of the High Court is impermissible.

(at pages 555-556)

13. The second ground on which this case was decided was

that an order framing a charge was not a purely interlocutory

order so as to attract the bar of Section 392(2), but would be an

“intermediate” class of order, between a final and a purely

interlocutory order, on the application of a test laid down by

English decisions and followed by our Courts, namely, that if

the order in question is reversed, would the action then go on or

25

be terminated. Applying this test, it was held that in an order

rejecting the framing of a charge, the action would not go on

and would be terminated and for this reason also would not be

covered by Section 397(2).

14. This judgment was affirmed by a 4-Judge Bench in V.C.

Shukla v. State through C.B.I. (1980) Supp. SCC 92 at 128-

129, where it was held that under Section 11 of the Special

Courts Act, 1979, the scheme being different from the Code of

Criminal Procedure, and the Section opening with the words

“notwithstanding anything in the Code”, the “intermediate” type

of order would not obtain, and an order framing a charge would,

therefore, not be liable to be appealed against, being purely

interlocutory in nature. While holding this, this Court was at

pains to point out:

“On a true construction of Section 11(1) of the Act

and taking into consideration the natural meaning of

the expression ‘interlocutory order’, there can be no

doubt that the order framing charges against the

appellant under the Act was merely an interlocutory

order which neither terminated the proceedings nor

finally decided the rights of the parties. According to

the test laid down in Kuppuswami’s case the order

impugned was undoubtedly an interlocutory order.

Taking into consideration, therefore, the natural

meaning of interlocutory order and applying the non

26

obstante clause, the position is that the

provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are

expressly excluded by the non obstante clause and

therefore s. 397(2) of the Code cannot be called into

aid in order to hold that the order impugned is not

an interlocutory order. As the decisions of this Court

in the cases of Madhu Limaye v. State of

Maharashtra and Amar Nath & v. State of Haryana

were given with respect to the provisions of the

Code, particularly s. 397(2), they were correctly

decided and would have no application to the

interpretation of s. 11(1) of the Act, which expressly

excludes the provisions of the Code of Criminal

Procedure by virtue of the non obstante clause.”

In Poonam Chand Jain and another v. Fazru, (2004) 13 SCC

269 at 276-279, this Court was at pains to point out that the

judgment in V.C. Shukla (supra) was rendered in the

background of the special statute applicable (See paragraph

13).

15. It is thus clear that Madhu Limaye (supra) continues to

hold the field, as has been held in V.C. Shukla (supra) itself.

How Madhu Limaye (supra) was understood in a subsequent

judgment of this Court is the next bone of contention between

the parties.

27

16. In Girish Kumar Suneja v. C.B.I., (2017) 14 SCC 809, a

3-Judge Bench of this Court was asked to revisit paragraph 10

of its earlier order dated 25th August, 2014, passed in the coal

block allocation cases. While transferring cases pending before

different courts to the Court of a Special Judge, this Court, in its

earlier order dated 25th August, 2014, had stated:

“10. We also make it clear that any prayer for stay

or impeding the progress in the investigation/trial

can be made only before this Court and no other

Court shall entertain the same.”

Several grounds were argued before this Court stating that

paragraph 10 ought to be recalled. We are concerned with

grounds (i), (ii) and (vii), which are set out hereinbelow:

“(i) The right to file a revision petition under Section

397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or

the Cr.P.C. as well approaching the High Court

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been taken

away;

(ii) The order passed by this Court has taken away

the right of the appellants to file a petition under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and thereby

judicial review, which is a part of the basic structure

of the Constitution, has been violated which even

Parliament cannot violate;

(vii) The prohibition in granting a stay under Section

19(3)(c) of the PC Act is not absolute and in an

appropriate case, a stay of proceedings could be

granted in favour of an accused person particularly

28

when there is a failure of justice. Any restrictive

reading would entail a fetter on the discretion of the

High Court which itself might lead to a failure of

justice.”

This Court referred to the judgment in Amar Nath (supra) and

then to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing

397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, inter alia,

stated as follows:

“(d) the powers of revision against interlocutory

orders are being taken away, as it has been found

to be one of the main contributing factors in the

delay or disposal of criminal cases;”

After referring to Madhu Limaye (supra) and the difference

between interlocutory and intermediate orders, this Court held

in paragraphs 25, 29, 30 and 32 as follows:

“25. This view was reaffirmed in Madhu Limaye

when the following principles were approved in

relation to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the context

of Section 397(2) thereof. The principles are:

“(1) That the power is not to be resorted

to if there is a specific provision in the

Code for the redress of the grievance of

the aggrieved party;

(2) That it should be exercised very

sparingly to prevent abuse of process of

any Court or otherwise to secure the

ends of justice;

(3) That it should not be exercised as

against the express bar of law engrafted

in any other provision of the Code.”

29

Therefore, it is quite clear that the prohibition

in Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. will govern Section

482 thereof. We endorse this view.

xxx xxx xxx

29. This leads us to another facet of the submission

made by learned counsel that even the avenue of

proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is

barred as far as the appellants are concerned. As

held in Amar Nath and with which conclusion we

agree, if an interlocutory order is not revisable due

to the prohibition contained in Section 397(2) of the

Cr.P.C. that cannot be circumvented by resort

to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. There can hardly be

any serious dispute on this proposition.

30. What then is the utility of Section 482 CrPC?

This was considered and explained in Madhu

Limaye [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra,

(1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] which

noticed the prohibition in Section 397(2) CrPC and

at the same time the expansive text of Section 482

CrPC and posed the question: In such a situation,

what is the harmonious way out? This Court then

proceeded to answer the question in the following

manner: (SCC pp. 555-56, para 10)

“10. … In such a situation, what is the

harmonious way out? In our opinion, a happy

solution of this problem would be to say that

the bar provided in sub-section (2) of Section

397 operates only in exercise of the revisional

power of the High Court, meaning thereby that

the High Court will have no power of revision

in relation to any interlocutory order. Then in

accordance with one of the other principles

enunciated above, the inherent power will

come into play, there being no other provision

in the Code for the redress of the grievance of

the aggrieved party. But then, if the order

30

assailed is purely of an interlocutory character

which could be corrected in exercise of the

revisional power of the High Court under the

1898 Code, the High Court will refuse to

exercise its inherent power. But in case the

impugned order clearly brings about a

situation which is an abuse of the process of

the Court or for the purpose of securing the

ends of justice interference by the High Court

is absolutely necessary, then nothing

contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect

the exercise of the inherent power by the High

Court. But such cases would be few and far

between. The High Court must exercise the

inherent power very sparingly.”

xxx xxx xxx

32. In Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

this Court considered the provisions of the PC Act

and held that there could be no stay of a trial under

the PC Act. It was clarified that that does not mean

that the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

cannot be taken recourse to, but even if a litigant

approaches the High Court under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C. and that petition is entertained, the trial

under the PC Act cannot be stayed. The litigant may

convince the court to expedite the hearing of the

petition filed, but merely because the court is not in

a position to grant an early hearing would not be a

ground to stay the trial even temporarily. With

respect, we do not agree with the proposition that

for the purposes of a stay of proceedings recourse

could be had to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Our

discussion above makes this quite clear.”

(at pages 832-834)

However, thereafter, this Court stated the law thus in paragraph

38:

31

“38. The Criminal Procedure Code is undoubtedly a

complete code in itself. As has already been

discussed by us, the discretionary jurisdiction

under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. is to be

exercised only in respect of final orders and

intermediate orders. The power under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only in respect

of interlocutory orders to give effect to an order

passed under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the

process of any Court or otherwise to serve the ends

of justice. As indicated above, this power has to be

exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and not

otherwise. If that is the position, and we are of the

view that it is so, resort to Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution would be permissible perhaps only

in the most extraordinary case. To invoke the

constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when

the Cr.P.C. restricts it in the interest of a fair and

expeditious trial for the benefit of the accused

person, we find it difficult to accept the proposition

that since Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

are available to an accused person, these

provisions should be resorted to in cases that are

not the rarest of rare but for trifling issues.”

(at pages 835-836)

17. According to us, despite what is stated in paragraphs 25,

29 and 32 supra, the ratio of the judgment is to be found in

paragraph 38, which is an exposition of the law correctly setting

out what has been held earlier in Madhu Limaye (supra). A

judgment has to be read as a whole, and if there are conflicting

parts, they have to be reconciled harmoniously in order to yield

a result that will accord with an earlier decision of the same

32

bench strength. Indeed, paragraph 30 of the judgment sets out

a portion of paragraph 10 of Madhu Limaye (supra), showing

that the Court was fully aware that Madhu Limaye (supra) did

not approve Amar Nath (supra) without a very important caveat

– and the caveat was that nothing in Section 397(2) can limit or

affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. We,

therefore, read paragraph 38 as the correct ratio of the said

judgment not only in terms of the applicability of Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also in terms of how it is to

be applied.

18. Insofar as petitions under Articles 226 and 227 are

concerned, they form part of the basic structure of the

Constitution as has been held in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union

of India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 261 at 301. Here again, the

judgment of a Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v. State of

Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 at 714, puts it very well when it

says:

“Though it cannot be said that the High Court has

no jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail

under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass

orders either way, relating to the cases under the

Act 1987, that power should be exercised sparingly,

33

that too only in rare and appropriate cases in

extreme circumstances. But the judicial discipline

and comity of courts require that the High Courts

should refrain from exercising the extraordinary

jurisdiction in such matters.”

This aspect of Kartar Singh (supra) has been followed in

Girish Kumar Suneja (supra) in paragraph 40 thereof and we

respectfully concur with the same. In view of the aforesaid

discussion, it is clear that the Delhi High Court judgment’s

conclusions in paragraph 33 (a), (b) and (d) must be set aside.

19. I agree with Goel, J. that the appeals be disposed of in

accordance with his judgment.

………………………J.

(R.F. Nariman)

New Delhi;

March 28, 2018.