Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. KHALID AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.
Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and another, Appellants
Versus
S.N. Thakur and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1979, d/-25-4-1986.
Constitution of India, Art 141 - Judgment of Supreme Court in one appeal - Judgment is binding on all Courts subordinate to the Supreme Court irrespective of any particular facts of a case. (Para 13)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a criminal appeal concerning the jurisdiction of subordinate criminal courts and the scope of their inherent powers outside the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) (!) (!) .
The facts center around a complaint filed in a Magistrate's court, which was dismissed for default due to non-appearance of the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant sought to restore the complaint, and the Magistrate ordered its restoration, which was challenged by the accused on the grounds that the Magistrate lacked inherent power to do so after becoming functus officio (!) (!) (!) .
The legal question includes whether a Magistrate has the inherent jurisdiction to recall or review their own order dismissing a complaint, especially when such an order is final or judgment-like in nature (!) (!) .
The court clarified that, in the absence of specific statutory provisions, a Magistrate does not possess inherent powers to review or recall a final order such as a dismissal for default; such orders are final and binding (!) (!) .
The decision emphasizes that judgments of the Supreme Court are binding on all subordinate courts, regardless of the facts of individual cases, underlining the supremacy of constitutional law and the binding nature of precedents (!) (!) (!) .
The scope of Article 141 of the Constitution of India is highlighted, establishing that law declared by the Supreme Court is binding across all courts within the territory of India and that this binding nature has an all-pervasive effect on the judicial system (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The case underscores that the principles of finality and res judicata are subject to the overarching authority of the Supreme Court's rulings, and that judgments have a binding, universal effect, even in cases where parties did not directly participate in the appeal or judgment (!) .
The court reaffirmed that subordinate courts must adhere to the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, and no inherent power exists in lower courts to revisit or modify final orders unless explicitly provided by statute (!) .
The ruling concludes with the affirmation that the appeal should be allowed, emphasizing the importance of respecting the authority and binding nature of Supreme Court judgments and the constitutional mandate under Article 141 (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal guidance.
Judgment
JUDGMENT :- This criminal appeal, by special leave, involves the question
Whether a Subordinate Criminal Court has any inherent jurisdiction outside the provisions of the Criminal P.C.?
Incidentally, the scope of Art. 141 of the Constitution also comes up for consideration.
2. The facts of the case can be stated first. The appellants, two in number, are the accused in a complaint filed by the first respondent in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, New Delhi, disclosing an offence punishable under Ss. 67 and 72C(1)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952, read with Regulation 106 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation, 1961. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file and issued summons to the accused to appear on 6-1-1972. On 6-1-1972 neither the complainant nor the accused were present and, therefore, the Magistrate passed the following order :
"Accused not present. None present for the complainant also. The complaint is hereby dismissed in default and for want of prosecution."
On 13-1-1972, the complainant filed an application for restoration of the complaint. On 20-1-1972, the Magistrate passed the following order:
"I heard Shri T. S. Sodhi. The complaint be restored. Summon accused for 21/2."
On 21-2-1972, the accused petitioners moved an application before the Magistrate stating that the order dated 20-1-1972 was without jurisdiction since the Magistrate had become functus officio, by his order dated 6-1-1972. This application was rejected by the Magistrate by his order dated 8-5-1972. He was of the view that he had inherent powers under the Criminal P.C. to review and re-call his earlier orders.
3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed a revision before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi, which was dismissed on 6-7-1973.
4. This was followed by another revision before the High Court of Delhi. The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision by its order dated 10-1-1975, relying upon an earlier decision of the same Court to the effect that a criminal Court had certain inherent powers, though not specifically mentioned in the Code.
5. On 5-8-1976, this Court delivered its judgment in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, (1977) 1 SCR 125: (AIR 1977 SC 2432), holding that no criminal Court had any inherent Jurisdiction, not provided for in the Criminal P. C. The petitioners, armed with this decision, moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 22-12-1976, contending that all proceedings, after the dismissal of the complaint by order dated 6-1-1972, were without jurisdiction in the light of the law laid down by this Court and requested the Magistrate to drop further proceedings. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate accepted, this contention and by his order dated 16-7-1977 dropped the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. Aggrieved by this order. the respondents filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, to whom this case stood transferred, reversed the decision of the Magistrate by his order dated 7-1-1978 and held that : "so far as Art. 141 of the Constitution of India and the ratio of these decisions are concerned, there can be no dispute whatsoever. At the same time a pronouncement as to the position of law in a judicial decision by the SC cannot be treated as a sort of legislation by the Parliament giving retrospective effect as to enjoin reopening of all matters which have already become final and closed."
7. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners moved the Delhi High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India read with S. 482 of the Criminal P. C., to quash further proceedings, relying upon the decision of this Court mentioned above and contending that the order of the Sessions Judge was wrong. This revision petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court on 9-8-1978. observing :
"I find no sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed."
It is against this order that this app
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
