Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. Chauhan and Jasti Chelameswar, JJ.
Phool Chandra and Anr. – Petitioners
Vs.
State of U.P. – Respondents
Crl. M.P. No. 25683 of 2013 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2448 of 2014
Decided On: 10.03.2014
Indian Penal Code - Sections 363/366/506 – First Information Report – Acquitted – rigorous Imprisonment - It is a settled principle of law that power under Article 136 of Constitution of India 1950 is to be invoked not in a routine manner but in very exceptional circumstances when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision sought to be impugned before this Court shocks conscience of court This matter was heard however who argued case could not satisfy court regarding maintainability of petition against impugned order. Thus court requested him to call Advocate-on-Record in second round - Learned Advocate-on-Record, appeared, argued and thereafter sought time as he could not satisfy the court regarding the maintainability of the petition – Held, All these are aberrations in functioning of Apex Court of any country - Of-lately there has been an increase in trend of litigants rushing to courts, including this Court for all kinds of trivial and silly matters which results in wastage of public money and time - A closer scrutiny of all such matters would disclose that there was not even a remote justification for filing case - It is a pity that time of Court which is becoming acutely precious because of piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such matters - There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation - Perhaps many such cases can be avoided if learned Counsel who are officers of court and who are expected to assist court tender proper advice to their clients - Bar has to realize that great burden upon Bench of dispensing justice imposes a simultaneous duty upon them to share this burden and it is their duty to see that burden should not needlessly be made unbearable - Judges of this Nation are struggling bravely against odds to tackle problem of dispensing quick justice - But without cooperation of gentlemen of Bar nothing can be done If the Supreme Court entertains all and sundry kinds of cases it will soon be flooded with a huge amount of backlog and will not be able to deal with important questions relating to the Constitution or the law or where grave injustice has been done, for which it was really meant under the Constitutional Scheme. After all, the Supreme Court has limited time at its disposal and it cannot be expected to hear every kind of dispute. The court expressed its sympathy with the judges as they struggle with an unbearable burden judges spend late nights trying to read briefs for a Monday or a Friday - When each of the 13 Benches have to dispose off about 60 cases in a day, the functioning of the Supreme Court of India is a far cry from what should be desiderate for disposal of cases in a calm and detached atmosphere - Petition is dismissed
ORDER :
1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 14.5.2013 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad while dealing with the application for early hearing in Criminal Appeal No. 4309 of 2012.
2. The Petitioners stood convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Indian Penal Code') in Sessions Trial No. 879 of 2010 (State of U.P. v. Phool Chandra and Anr.) arising out of Case Crime No. 28 of 2009, Police Station Utraon, District Allahabad in which FIR was lodged on 8.2.2009 by one Bhola Nath alleging that his daughter Kumari Manita aged 14 years, student of class 10th had gone to school on 6.2.2009 but did not return. He also expressed suspicion that his neighbour Sharda Prasad Gupta might be involved in the incident. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, investigation ensued and the victim Manita was recovered by the police on 12.2.2009. After completing the investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the Petitioners and some other persons under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code and after conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dated 8.10.2012, the Petitioners stood convicted under Sections 363/366/506 Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7, 8 and 3 years respectively, had been imposed alongwith fines and further sentence in case of default in making payment. Some of the co-accused who also faced the trial were acquitted.
3. Aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 4309 of 2012 before the High Court and vide order dated 20.11.2012 they had been enlarged on bail.
4. The Petitioners moved an application for early hearing of the Criminal Appeal wherein the Court was pleased to pass the following order:
The case is released.
Put up this case before appropriate Bench.
Hence this petition.
5. This matter was heard on 17.12.2013, however, Shri Pardeep Kumar Yadav who argued the case, could not satisfy the court regarding the maintainability of the petition against the impugned order. Thus, we requested him to call the Advocate-on-Record in the second round. Shri Ajit Kumar Pande, learned Advocate-on-Record, appeared, argued and thereafter sought time as he could not satisfy the court regarding the maintainability of the petition, nor he could explain what was the grave urgency for seeking early hearing of the criminal appeal when the Petitioners had been enlarged on bail, and particularly, when many people are waiting in the jail and their cases are not being heard by the Allahabad High Court for 20-30 years. He sought time to satisfy the court regarding its maintainability and, hence, the matter had been adjourned several times.
6. This petition has been filed with a delay of 108 days. Though, during this period, had the Petitioners made any attempt, their application for early hearing could have been heard by the appropriate Bench of Allahabad High Court, however, no effort was made.
7. It is a settled principle of law that the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Constitution') is to be invoked not in a routine manner but in very exceptional circumstances when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision sought to be impugned before this Court shocks the conscience of the court. This overriding and exceptional power vested in this Court has to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of the cause of justice. (Vide: Subedar v. The State of UP, AIR 1971 SC 125; and Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharathnam and Anr., AIR 1979 SC 1284).
8. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169 cautioned that the wide discretionary power vested in this Court should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only when special circumstances are shown to exist.
9. Another Constitution Bench in The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. The Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi etc., AIR 1950
SupremeToday
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
