| Headnote |
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.19(3)(c) – Interpretation of – Order framing charge under the 1988 Act – Challenge to – Jurisdiction of High Court and power to grant stay in such matters – Whether an order on charge framed under the provisions of 1988 Act, is an interlocutory order, and thereby in view of s.19(3)(c), exercise of revisional power of High Court u/ s.397(2),CrPC is barred – Also whether s.19(3)(c) which bars revision would also bar exercise of inherent power of High Court u/s.482, CrPC or u/Arts.226 and 227– Held: Per A. K. Goel, J. (for himself and Navin Sinha, J.) Order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order– Jurisdiction of High Court is not barred either u/s.397 or u/s.482, CrPC or u/Art.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, 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 re-appreciate 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 exceed two-three months normally – Mandate of speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well – Per R. F. Nariman, J. (Concurring) 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 – Section 19(3)(c) cannot be read as a ban on the maintainability of a petition filed before High Court u/s.482,CrPC – Constitution of India – Arts. 21, 215, 226 and 227 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.397(2), 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 –Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 – Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act, 1964 – Stay. Constitution of India: Art. 21 – Mandate of speedy justice in criminal cases – Delay in trials of corruption cases, due to grant of stay – Directions issued – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Stay. [Per A.K. Goel, J. (for himself and Navin Sinha, J.)] Stay: Duration of, in civil and criminal cases – Held: Where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months – Administration of justice. [Per A.K. Goel, J. (for himself and Navin Sinha, J.)] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.19(3)(c) r/w ss.4(4) and 22 – Cases under the Act – Disposal of – Held: S.19(3)(c) read with ss.4(4) and 22, 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. (Per R.F. Nariman, J.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Inherent Powers of Court – Nature of – Discussed. (Per R.F. Nariman, J.) Interpretation of Statutes: In case of ambiguity – Held: If there is an ambiguity, and two views are possible, the view which most accords with the object of the Act, and which makes the Act workable, must necessarily be the controlling view. (Per R.F. Nariman, J.) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.19(3)(c) – “On any other ground” – Plea of appellants that the expression “on any other ground” is referable only to grounds which relate to sanction and not to all proceedings under the Act – Respondents contended that these are grounds referable to the proceedings under the Act and are not relatable to sanction only – Held: “On any other ground”, 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. (Per R.F. Nariman, J.) |
