Back
2009(4) Supreme 808
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Gurmej Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Punjab & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 992 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 6705/2006)
Decided on : 28-04-2009
(1914) 1 KB 160:83 LJKB 86; 1943 AC 627: (1948) 2 All ER 337; 1911 AC 179:80 LJKB 796; 1985 (10) AC 229: 54 LJMC 81; 1855(2) Macg. 1.8; 1877-78(3) App.Case 614, JC; 1884-85(10) App.Case 229; 1885(55) LJRD 39; 1890(24) QBD 712; (1963(1) WB 569; (1978) 2 SCR 621; 1967(2) B617, 530; 1976 WLR 1255; 1977 (1) WLR 766 – Relied upon.
(b) Natural Justice – Comprises of two rules – ‘Nemo judex in causa sua’ or ‘nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua’ that is, ‘no man shall be a judge in his own cause’ – The second rule is ‘audi alteram partem’, that is, ‘hear the other side’ – It can also be expressed as ‘justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done’ – Striking down an order as invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice does not render any final decision of the case – Only the order assailed is vacated owing to its inherent defect – The proceedings are not terminated and fresh proceedings are left upon. (Para 15)
Facts of the case :
1. The accused Sanjiv Kumar was posted as ASI in Police Station City Phagwara. On 23/2/2002 at about 7.30 p.m. he along with 4-5 unidentified persons had committed an offence of trespass by entering into building of M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Limited Phagwara. He allegedly committed dacoity by robbing Sukhraj Singh Director of that Company of the Indian currency and foreign currency.
2. High Court upheld the conviction of the accused -Sanjiv Kumar for offence punishable under Sections 395, 450 and 342 IPC. High Court was of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant Sanjiv Kumar was on the higher side especially when the appellant herein who was the main person involved in the matter had not been prosecuted. The Home Secretary of the State and the DGP were directed to look into the matter and take steps to prosecute the appellant herein in the appeals atleast for the offences for which Sanjiv Kumar appellant has been charged or at least for preparing false documents involving Sukhraj Singh and keeping him wrongfully confined.
Finding of the Court :
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—
1. Application for impleadment is rejected.
2. Leave granted.
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court which gave certain directions qua the present appellant who was the investigating officer. One Sanjiv Kumar filed an appeal against the judgment dated 17/7/2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the said accused Sanjiv Kumar was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 450, 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).
4. The complainant Sukhraj Singh also filed a revision for payment of compensation. The prosecution version was that the accused Sanjiv Kumar was posted as ASI in Police Station City Phagwara. On 23/2/2002 at about 7.30 p.m. he along with 4-5 unidentified persons had committed an offence of trespass by entering into building of M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Limited Phagwara. He allegedly committed dacoity by robbing Sukhraj Singh Director of that Company of the Indian currency and foreign currency. There were other aspects highlighted by the prosecution in the trial. We are not concerned with those presently.
5. The present appellant appeared as DW.1 and supported the version given in FIR No.19 dated 23/2/2002 registered by Gurmej Singh Inspector SHO. The High Court was of the view, while dealing with the appeal of Sanjiv Kumar, that it would have been fair and proper to involve the present appellant and all the persons named in FIR No.19 and to prosecute them and that if they had been present in the Court then the witnesses could say whether they were the other persons or not. It was also observed that when the other persons were not challaned or shown then the witnesses could always say about Sanjiv Kumar ASI and 4-5 unidentified persons. With these observations and after discussing the evidence, the High Court upheld the conviction of the accused -Sanjiv Kumar for offence punishable under Sections 395, 450 and 342 IPC. High Court was of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant Sanjiv Kumar was on the higher side especially when the appellant herein who was the main person involved in the matter had not been prosecuted. The Home Secretary of the State and the DGP were directed to look into the matter and take steps to prosecute the appellant herein in the appeals atleast for the offences for which Sanjiv Kumar appellant has been charged or at least for preparing false documents involving Sukhraj Singh and keeping him wrongfully confined.
6. Though various points were argued, the main contention made for the appellant was that the observations and directions were given even without issuance of notice to the appellant. In other words he has been condemned without even hearing him. According to the learned counsel, the basic principles of natural justice have been violated. Learned counsel for the State fairly accepted that no opportunity was granted during hearing of the appeal by the High Court.
7. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.
8. What is meant by the term ‘principles of natural justice’ is not easy to determine. Lord Summer (then Hamilton, L.J.) in Ray v. Local Government Board1 (1914) 1 KB 160 at p.199:83 LJKB 86) described the phrase as sadly lacking in precision. In General Council of Medical Education & Registration of U.K. v. Sanckman2 (1943 AC 627: (1948) 2 All ER 337), Lord Wright observed that it was not desirable to attempt ‘to force it into any procusteam bed’ and mentioned that one essential requirement was that the Tribunal should be impartial and have no personal interest in the controver
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
