Inherent Power of the Court: Can it be Restricted?
Table of content:
- Introduction
- Background of filing litigation
- Question Framed by the single bench
- Referring of Division Bench in answering the questions raised by the single bench
- The contention of the parties
- The decision of the court
- conclusion
- case laws:
- Dharambir Khattar vs Central Bureau of Investigation [159 (2009) DLT 636]
- C. Sabharwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation [166 (2010) DLT 362].
- C. Shukla vs Satya Narayan Sharma
- Amar Nath vs State of Haryana [(1977) 4 SCC 137]
- Girish Kumar Suneja vs CBI [(2017) 14 SCC 809]
Introduction
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation passed a landmark judgment by determining the long going controversy in regard to section 19 (3) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. Despite that, with the ruling of this judgment, the apex court highlighted the simplicity in disposing of the matter by issuing directions to all the civil and criminal matters to avoid the delay in the adjudication of the matter.
In this article we are going to discuss the following aspects:
- concept of intermediate, interlocutory, and final orders
- power of the court to grant the stay to the trial proceedings
- Exercise of the inherent power of the court where it is expressly barred under section 482 of code of criminal procedure, 1973 read with article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution.
Background of filing litigation
On 7th March 2001, a first information report (F.I.R.) was lodged before the Delhi Special Police which is established under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 477A of the Indian penal code, 1860, and section 13 (2) which is read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The allegations made in the F.I.R. is that forged invoices of Oil Companies were used for the transfer of Bitumen which is used in the making of dense carpeting done in the making and maintaining of the roads in Delhi in the year 1997- 1998.
Upon registering the F.I.R. the investigation was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed by the CBI against the appellant and other employees of the appellant company. The appellant before the special judge, CBI filed an application for discharge. By rejecting the application of the appellant directed to continue the matter with the framing of charges. The special judge CBI stated that a prima facie case was made out of all the material on record. And this revision is then converted into the writ petition.
Question Framed by the single bench
The following questions are raised by the single bench of the court and referring it to the division bench of the court:
- Whether an order passed by the special judge is considered to be an interlocutory order under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
- When a revision is not preferred under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure then it can be convertible under Article 226 and Article 32 of the constitution of India?
- Whether or not the offense was committed to falling under the ambit of Indian Penal Code, 1860 besides the prevention of corruption act?
This matter was referred to the division bench to solve the conflict between the two judgments as observed by the Single Judge Bench of the court. The single bench pointed out that there are two conflicting opinions are expressed in the case of Dharambir Khattar vs Central Bureau of Investigation [159 (2009) DLT 636] and the case of R.C. Sabharwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation [166 (2010) DLT 362].
In Dharambir’s case, the court observed that in the context of section 19 (3) (c) no court has the power to exercise its power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry or trial. And by reading this observation with the decision in the V.C. Shukla vs Satya Narayan Sharma, it was clearly stated that no revision petition is maintainable in High Court against any order related to framing of charges passed by a special judge in the context of section 19 (3) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence the bench is of opinion that the objection of the CBI regarding the maintainability of the petition of the instant case needs to be upheld.
While if we see the ruling of RC Sabharwal’s case the court observed that the remedy provided under section 482 of Crpc cannot be exercised due to the presence of the express bar but Article 226 and Article 227 of the constitution of India will not come to the rescue of it.
The question before the Division Bench:
- Whether the order passed under the act of 1988 is considered to be an interlocutory order?
- Whether the language used in section 19 of the act of 1988 which ultimately bars the revision powers can also be led to bar the power conferred under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973?
- Whether order passed for the framing of charges can be assailed under Article 227 of the constitution of India?
Referring of Division Bench in answering the questions raised by the single bench
The division bench held that an order passed by the special judge, central bureau of investigation is considered as an interlocutory order and therefore, such an order is not maintainable as the provision of Section 19 (3) of the Prevention of Corruption act put a statutory bar on the maintenance of any interlocutory order. Further, the bench added that if the petition is filed before the court under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Article 227 of the constitution of India, 1950 is maintainable by the court although there is a statutory bar provided by the act. But filing a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Article 227 of the constitution of India, 1950 doesn’t amount that the court can be passed an order of stay as it is expressly barred by the provision of the said act. The court can entertain the petition under section 482 of the code of 1973 or Article 227 of the constitution of India, 1950 only in exceptional circumstances where it appears in the eye of the court that such entertainment is necessary for the end of justice.
The contention of the parties
Arguments of the appellant:
- The appellant argued that the petition filed under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 or Article 227 of the constitution of India shall be maintainable.
- Any interference of the high court regarding the passing of the order for the stay or any other order shall be deemed to be legal under the law.
Arguments of the CBI
- CBI argued that the decision and the observation made by the High court must be in consonance with the law of land.
The decision of the court
The apex court in the instant case held that the intention of the legislature behind putting a bar under section 397 (2) is to monitor and check whether the criminal matters are disposed of without any delay or not. While the inherent powers conferred to the court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 doesn’t affect any other provision.
Further, the court by relying upon the ruling of the Amar Nath vs State of Haryana [(1977) 4 SCC 137] upheld that the authority provided to the High Courts under section 482 of Crpc must be used and exercised in a cautious way.
Furthermore, the apex court held that the High Court would have very much jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed to challenge the order of a special judge for framing of charge by rejecting the application for discharge made by the appellant. The court also relied upon the decision made in the case of Girish Kumar Suneja vs CBI [(2017) 14 SCC 809] to upheld the intention of the legislature behind the enactment of the Prevention of Corruption Act. And while doing this the court also takes a note of the insertion of the proviso in section 397 (1) added via section 22 (d) of the act.
The court held that the order passed by the special judge of CBI for framing of charges does not amount to an interlocutory order and the High Court has the power to dismiss or quashed such order. And if any stay order is passed by the High Court then it shall be passed by keeping it in view on day to day basis by the court so that there is no undue delay in disposal of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Conclusion
By passing such a judgment in the instant case the Supreme Court change the perspective of the working of the judiciary to dispose of the cases related to corruption so that a balance could be maintained between the rights of the accused and the interest of the society. Also with the help of this case the court clarifies that the inherent power conferred by section 4782 of the code of criminal procedure3 cannot be restricted by any statutory provisions.