1. Criminal revision petitions challenging charges in a trial that had reached the final stage of prosecution evidence. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 857
2000(7) Supreme 70
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
K.T. Thomas & Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu -Appellant
versus
Selvi J. Jayalalitha -Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 395-397 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 475-477 of 2000)
Decided on 25-4-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Shanti Bhushan, V.R. Reddy, N. Natarajan, Anil B. Diwan, R. Mohan, Sr. Advocates, R. Shunmugha Sundaram and V.G. Pragasam, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, K.V. Viswanathan, N. Jothi, Sanjay Jain, Kunwar Ajit Mohan Singh, R.P. Wadhwani and K.V. Venkataraman, Advocates.
Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 239 and 245-Discharge of accused-Trial Court almost reached final stage of prosecution evidence-High Court passing order discharging accused expressing final opinion on merits of legal interpretation regarding point raised-Improper-Accused seeking permission to withdraw petition for discharge unconditionally-Petition filed before High Court for discharge dismissed as withdrawn-Permission granted to raise all contention before trial Court at final stage-Impugned judgment of High Court would stand erased. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Sustainability of charges under the Indian Penal Code and the propriety of the High Court expressing final opinions on merits during the trial stage. (Para 2 )
3. Expressing a final opinion on legal interpretations by a High Court is improper when the trial court has reached the final stage of prosecution evidence. (Para 2 )
4. High Courts should refrain from pronouncing final opinions on legal merits when a trial is nearly complete to avoid prejudicing the trial court's final decision. (Para 2 )
5. Revision petitions dismissed as withdrawn, High Court judgment erased, and trial court directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Is it proper for a High Court to express a final opinion on legal interpretations when a trial is at the final stage of prosecution evidence?
No, the court held that it is not proper for a Single Judge to express a final opinion on the merits of legal interpretations when the trial has reached such an advanced stage. (Para 2 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. When we heard Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu on 18.4.2000, he frankly conceded that the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be charged against the respondent on the facts of this case. However, learned senior counsel addressed detailed arguments regarding sustainability of the other offences included in the charge framed against the respondent, and seriously attacked the reasons of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the impugned order. Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel who argued for the respondent defended the order. We are told that the impugned order was passed by the High Court when the trial Court has reached almost the final stage of prosecution evidence, as only a few more witnesses remained to be examined. When we expressed to Shri Sushil Kumar that it was not proper for the Single Judge to have expressed final opinion on the merits of the legal interpretations regarding the points raised, when the trial has reached such a stage, learned senior counsel wanted time to get instructions as to whether the petitions filed by the respondent to discharge the accused can be withdrawn without prejudice to her rights to raise all the contentions in the trial Court afresh. We granted time till today.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent now seeks permission to withdraw the criminal revision petitions filed in the High Court (Crl. Revision Complaint Nos. 406/1998, 606/1999 and 930/1999) without prejudice to her rights to raise all the contentions in the trial Court afresh. In fact an application has been filed on behalf of the respondent seeking permission to withdraw, unconditionally, Criminal Revision Petitions numbered as above filed before the High Court of Madras. That application will be on record. We order that the above revision petitions filed in the High Court would stand dismissed as withdrawn. However, we, permit the respondent to raise all contentions which she thinks necessary before the trial Court at the final stage. We, therefore, declare that the impugned common judgment dated 13.1.2000 passed by the High Court of Madras will stand erased. If the trial Court is to decide any questions which have been dealt with in the impugned judgment the same shall be decided as though the High Court has not pronounced any opinion on such questions thus far. The trial Court will now proceed to conclude the trial and dispose it of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
4. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(C.R.) Order accordingly.
***************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
State of Tamil Nadu v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha, 2000(7) Supreme 71 : 2000 (Supp. 1) JT 480 : 2000 (4) Crimes 142 : 2000 (4) Cur. Crl.R. 150
00024
