SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 972

2009(4) Supreme 690
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Mohammed Ishaq — Appellant
versus
S. Kazam Pasha & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3209 of 2008)
With
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 13 of 2008
Decided on : 06-05-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Manoj George, Alex Joseph, Md. Irshad Hanif, Muzaffar Ullah, Advocates.
For the Respondent:A. Sharan, ASG, Sushil Kumar, Anoop G. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocates., Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, M.P.A. Shullri, Mushtaq Ahamad, Subhash Kaushik (for S.N. Terdal), Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
The rule requiring exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law.
The executive clemency may not be extended to a law disobeying citizen who did not surrender before the trial court as mandated by the law.


Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 392 and 452 – Appellant was proved guilty of offences u/ss 148, 392 and 452 beyond reasonable doubt – High Court order therefore set aside and that of trial court restored. (Para 17)

        (b) Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 and 32 – Merely because there is an alternative remedy available, it is not a bar for invoking writ jurisdiction before the High Court or the Supreme Court – The rule requiring exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. (Para 21)

        (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 433(c) – Well settled that the exercise or non-exercise of pardon power by the President or Governor is not immune from judicial review – Limited judicial review is available in certain cases – Consideration of religion, cast or political loyalty of a convicted person for the purpose of commutation of his sentence are held to be prohibited grounds. (Para 25)

        (2006) 8 SCC 161 – Relied upon.

        (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 433(c) – The executive clemency may not be extended to a law disobeying citizen who did not surrender before the trial court as mandated by the law – The order of commutation of sentence should reveal application of mind – The power must be exercised reasonably and rationally. (Paras 26 and 27)

       Facts of the case :

        1. Mohd. Ishaq - PW-1 (the appellant herein) is a resident of House No. 23-2-10, Khaja-Ka-Chilla, Moghalpura, Hyderabad which is a sarfakhas property. His father, Mohd. Maqbool was working as watchman of Khaja-Ka-Chilla. He resided in the said house as per the agreement with sarfakhas. After his death, his son (PW-1) continued to live in the said house with his family members.

        2. One Latif Khader Saheb had established Latifaia Arabic College by the side of house of the appellant. Respondent herein (A-1) is the son-in-law of said Latif Khader Saheb. Respondent (A-1) was working as Librarian in the said college. A-2 to A-5 are employees of the said college whereas A-6 and A-7 are friends of respondent (A-1).

        3. It has been stated that A-1 to A-7 asked the appellant to vacate the above-mentioned house. On 10.06.1990 at 7.00 AM, A-1 to 7 broke open the doors of the house got into the house, beat PWs 7, 9, 10 and 13 and loaded household articles in a lorry and emptied the house.

        4. The trial court found A-1 guilty for the offences under Sections 148, 452 and 392 IPC and convicted and sentenced him.

        5. The High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by A-1 and set aside the conviction for the offences under Sections 148, 392 and 452 IPC and acquitted him of the same. However, the High Court convicted him for the offences under Sections 147 and 451 IPC and sentenced him.

       Finding of the Court :

        Impugned judgment and Govt. order cannot be sustained.

       Result : The appeal as well the writ application allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—

SLP (Crl.) No. 3209/2008

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 29.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby the learned Single Judge partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein by setting aside his conviction for the offence under Sections 148, 392 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and convicted him under Sections 147 and 451 IPC.

4. Factual matrix of the case is as follows:

Mohd. Ishaq - PW-1 (the appellant herein) is a resident of House No. 23-2-10, Khaja-Ka-Chilla, Moghalpura, Hyderabad which is a sarfakhas property. His father, Mohd. Maqbool was working as watchman of Khaja-Ka-Chilla. He resided in the said house as per the agreement with sarfakhas. After his death, his son (PW-1) continued to live in the said house with his family members. PW-7 and Anjuna Fathima are the sisters of PW-1. PW-2 and PW-9 are daughters of PW-7. PW-8 is daughter of his another sister. PW-10 is the younger sister of PW-8. PW-13 is wife of PW-1. They were all residing together in the above-mentioned house. The said house comprises of six rooms, out of which three rooms fell to the share of PW-1, two rooms fell to the share of his sister - Ahmedi Begum (PW-7) and one room fell to the share of his another sister - Anjum Fatima. One Latif Khader Saheb had established Latifaia Arabic College by the side of house of the appellant herein. Respondent herein (A-1) is the son-in-law of said Latif Khader Saheb. Respondent (A-1) was working as Librarian in the said college. A-2 to A-5 are employees of the said college whereas A-6 and A-7 are friends of respondent (A-1).

5. It has been stated that A-1 to A-7 demanded that the appellant would vacate the above-mentioned house. They tried to evict the appellant forcibly from the house but locality of the people intervened and made their efforts futile. However, on 10.06.1990 at 7.00 AM, Ayesha Khan (PW-2) while taking water from a tap which was near the gate of Khaja-Ka-Chilla saw A-1 to A-7 entering the premises. She went and informed her mother Ahmedi Begum (PW-7). The appellant (PW-1) and PW-7 closed the doors of the house so as to prevent the entry of A-1 to A-7 and their associates. However, A-1 to 7 broke open the doors of the house and gained entry into the house. When they attempted to lift the household articles, the appellant and his sister’s husband Mohd. Qasim went through another door of the house to the police station to inform the highhanded acts of the accused. When PWs 7, 9, 10 and 13 prevented A- 1 and his associates from removing the household articles, they were beaten up by the accused. By the time appellant returned from the police station, A-1 and his associates loaded household articles in a lorry bearing No. ABT 6596 and emptied the house. The efforts made by PW-1 to prevent A-1 to A-7 and their associates from removing the household articles did not yield any fruitful result. He along with the injured woman folk i.e. PWs 7,9,10 and 13 went to the police station and presented a report. One M.A. Hafiz Khan (PW-17), Inspector of Police, Mogalpura Police Station received the report and registered a case bearing Crime No. 69 of 1990 under Sections 147, 452 and 392 of IPC and sent the injured i.e. PWs 7,9,10 and 13 to the hospital. He inspected the scene and found no house articles in the house bearing No. 23-2-10, Khaja-Ka-Chilla, Mogalpura. Dr. Swarna Lata Singh (PW-5) medically examined Ahmedi Begum (PW-7), Asma Begum (PW-9), Wjeed Shareef (PW-10) and Naseem Begum (PW-13) and issued wound certificates in respect of them.

6. PW-1, (the appellant herein) having come to know that his articles were hidden at house No. 18-7-312/1/C/25, Talabkatta, Amannagar filed a petition under Section 94 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short the ‘Cr.P.C.’) in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-First Addl. Magistrate, Hyderabad for issuance of s































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top