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

2006 Supreme(SC) 562

Supreme Court Of India
S.B.Sinha,P.P.Naolekar
POPULAR MUTHIAH
Versus
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Decided On : 07/04/2006

Advocates:
ABHAY KUMAR, M.N.Rao, P.R.KOVILAN, P.RAMESH KUMAR, PRASHANTA VENKATESH, RAJEEV DHAVAN, RAKESH K.SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

The judgment establishes the limitations of the High Court's inherent powers and the corrective mechanism provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure at each stage of the legal process.

Headnote:

inherent jurisdiction - Criminal Appeal - Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482 - The judgment discusses the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused. The court examined the involvement of the appellants in a fatal attack and directed further investigation and prosecution of the appellants. The judgment also delves into the limitations of the High Court's inherent powers and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a fatal attack resulting in the death of an individual. The appellants were not parties to the original Criminal Appeal. The prosecution case related to an incident in 1992, and no chargesheet was filed against the appellants. The Sessions Judge convicted one individual, Nallakannu Muthu, for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court affirmed the conviction of Nallakannu Muthu and directed further investigation and prosecution of the appellants, Popular Muthiah and Murugan. The High Court also made adverse comments against the investigating officers, public prosecutors, and the trial Judge for their conduct in the case.

Issues: The principal question involved in the appeal was whether the High Court could exercise inherent jurisdiction while dealing with a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused. The court also considered the compliance with mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the conduct of the investigating officers, public prosecutors, and the trial Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment discusses the limitations of the High Court's inherent powers and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It emphasizes the corrective mechanism provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure at each stage, including investigation, trial, appeal, and revision. The court also highlights the distinction between cases where the application of Section 482 is specifically excluded and cases where there is no specific provision limiting the power to be exercised.

Final Decision: The judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for reconsideration. The High Court was directed to issue notice to the appellants and the State and pass appropriate orders after giving them an opportunity of hearing.

S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) WHETHER inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is available while dealing with a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused is the principal question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 18/4/2002 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 1997.

( 2 ) THE appellants before us were not parties to the said Criminal Appeal. The prosecution case relates to an incidence which took place on 13/3/1992 resulting in death of one Chandran. On 13/3/1992, the brother of Nallakannu @ Muthu was said to have fatally been attacked in Maruthur Village. A case was registered against PW3, the brother of PW1, Arasappan, father of PW1, Vanumamali, brother-in-law of PW3, Raja, son of PW3, Raj son of PW1's sister Ganambal and George (deceased) son of the PW1's sister Ganambal. They were arrested and released on bail subject to certain conditions. PW1 and her relatives after the said incident allegedly shifted to another village Palayamkottai. The father-in-law of PW1 was a homoeopathic doctor. He was having a medical shop. He was also having a hotel commonly known as 'hare Krishna" hotel. The medical shop and the hotel were situate opposite to each other near Palaymkottai bus stand and were at a distance of 6 furlongs from the house of PW1.

( 3 ) ON 11/7/1992 at about 3. 00 P. M. , PW3 - brother of PW1, Arasappan - father of PW1, Vanumamali - brother-in-law of PW3, Raj - son of PW1's sister Ganambal and George (deceased) son of PW1's sister Ganambal came to the house of PW1. As PW1 was not feeling well, she came to the medical shop of her father-in-law to purchase medicines. Nallakannu @ Muthu, Murugan and Popular Muthiah came behind him in a Rajdoot motorcycle. They stopped them near the Palayamkottai bus stand. The appellant Popular Muthiah allegedly shouted to kill George - son of PW1's sister Ganambal and left the scene on the motorcycle leaving behind Nallakannu and Murugan. Nallakannu took a sickle which is said to have been hidden in his shirt and assaulted George on the left side of his neck. The deceased who received bleeding injury left his chappals there and started to run from the said place. Nallakannu and Murugan allegedly chased him. The deceased ran inside 'hare Krishna' hotel which, as noticed hereinbefore, owned by the father-in-law of PW1. At that time, PW3 - brother of PW1 and PW4 Ashokan, brother-in-law of PW1 were inside the hotel. Upon noticing that the deceased was being chased, PW3 and Ashokan came out of the hotel. Inside the hotel, Murugan is said to have assaulted the deceased on his chest. Nallakannu @ Muthu also assaulted him on the left side of his chest. The deceased also received injuries at their hands on his shoulder and on the left ear. The deceased thereafter fell down whereupon Nallakannu again is said to have assaulted the deceased on the left side of his chest with the sickle. Thereafter, Nallakannu came out of the hotel and went towards west. The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Palaymkottai in an auto-rickshaw by PW3 along with PW2, PW3 and PW4 where he was declared dead by the doctor. A First Information Report in respect of the said incident was lodged by PW-1.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, no chargesheet was filed against the appellant herein. A copy of the said chargesheet, however, admittedly was not sent to the first informant. The learned Magistrate, before whose Court the said chargesheet was filed also did not inform the first inform ant which was mandatory. Nallakannu @ Muthu alone was committed to the Court of Sessions. Before the learned Sessions Judge, all the eye-witnesses allegedly took the names of the appellants as having played active roles in the entire episode. The learned Sessions Judge was neither called upon to exercise nor suo motu exercised his jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nallakannu @ Muthu alone in the aforementioned situation was tr





























































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