IMPORTANT POINTS
Revision jurisdiction of high Court is discretionary.
Revision jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction as also an intermediate order but not an interlocutory order.
In view of prohibition on interference with interlocutory order in revision jurisdiction u/s 397(2), jurisdiction u/s 482 cannot be invoked to achieve the same objective.
Filing a revision petition in the High Court in respect of an interlocutory order, though prohibited, the appellants can approach Supreme Court under Article 136, Constitution of India.
Power of Supreme Court to dismiss a petition without giving reasons does not mean that the Court will not give reasons or pass equitable orders.
Power u/s 482 can be exercised in respect of interlocutory order also if it is abuse of the process of law.
Grouping of all Coal block allocation cases is neither arbitrary nor legislation by Court.
Shifting of forum from High Court to Supreme Court is not denial, restriction or constriction of statutory right.
Power under Article 142 can be invoked only when it is not in conflict with the substantive provisions of any law.
Proceedings could be stayed only and only in case of an error, omission or irregularity in the sanction for prosecution resulting in failure of justice.
‘Failure of justice’ is much more than miscarriage of justice or a violation of law or an irregularity in procedure.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 397 – Revision jurisdiction of high Court is discretionary – Nobody has any right to the revision of a revisable order. (Para 12)
       1959 Supp. (1) SCR 63; (2013) 15 SCC 460 – Relied upon
       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 397 – Final, intermediate and interlocutory orders – Prohibition on exercising revision jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory order – Jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction as also an intermediate order. (Para 16, 17)
       (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 397 – Intermediate order – Is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order – Examples are order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused; and an order for framing charges. (Para 21, 23)
       (1977) 4 SCC 137; (1977) 4 SCC 551; (2000) 6 SCC 195 – Relied upon
       (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 397 and section 482 – In view of prohibition on interference with interlocutory order in revision jurisdiction u/s 397(2), jurisdiction u/s 482 cannot be invoked to achieve the same objective – What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. (Para 24)
       (1977) 4 SCC 137; (1977) 4 SCC 551 – Relied upon
       (1988) 2 SCC 602 – Distinguished
       (1973) 2 SCC 583 – Referred
       (e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 397 – Right of accused to file revision petition and to be heard – However, High Court not obliged to entertain the same – It can reject the petition at the threshold – Paragraph 10 of the order passed by Supreme Court on 25 July 2014 rightly took away entitlement of the appellants to file a revision petition in the High Court in respect of an interlocutory order – However appellants not left remediless – They can approach Supreme Court under Article 136, Constitution of India. (Para 27, 28)
       (f) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Power of Supreme Court to dismiss a petition without giving reasons – Does not mean that the Court will not give reasons or pass equitable orders. (Para 28)
       (g) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – High Court will not exercise power u/s 482 in respect of an interlocutory order as revision is prohibited u/s 397(2) – However, power u/s 482 can be exercised in respect of interlocutory order also if it is abuse of the process of law – Therefore the inherent power should be exercised in rarest of rare cases – Recourse could not be had to Section 482 for stay of proceedings. (Para 30, 31, 33)
       (1977) 4 SCC 551; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; (2001) 8 SCC 607 – Relied upon
       (h) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Challenge under Article 136 to orders of non substantive nature that can be agitated in regular appeal – Nothing but abuse of the process of the court – Such petitions are not maintainable even u/s 482, CrPC. (Para 33, 34)
       (2012) 3 SCC 117 – Relied upon
       (i) Constitution of India – Article 226 and 227 – High Court cannot correct mere errors of law or fact only because another view is possible – Jurisdiction should not be exercised for interfering in interlocutory orders being prohibited u/s 397 CrPC and very restricted u/s 482 CrPC – In such cases appellants can approach Supreme Court under Article 136, Constitution of India. (Para 37, 38, 39, 41)
       (1997) 3 SCC 261; (2010) 8 SCC 329; (1994) 3 SCC 569 – Relied upon
       (j) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Coal block allocation cases – All such cases grouped together and treated in same manner – Done in public interest – Not arbitrary. (Para 43)
       1954 SCR 30 – Relied upon
       (1988) 2 SCC 602; 1952 SCR 284 – Referred
       (k) Constitutional law – Separation of power – Classifying some cases and giving them special treatment in public interest – Does not amount to legislation by Court. (Para 46)
       (l) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Coal block allocations cases – Shifting of forum from High Court to Supreme Court – Not denial, restriction or constriction of statutory right. (Para 48, 49)
       (m) Constitution of India – Article 142 – ‘Complete justice’ – Article 142 enables Supreme Court to exercise extremely wide powers but the power is ancillary – Can be invoked only when it is not in conflict with the substantive provisions of any law – Does not declare law as under Article 141 and hence not binding precedent. (Para 54)
       (1998) 4 SCC 409; (2014) 8 SCC 883 – Relied upon
       (1966) 3 SCR 744 – Referred
       (n) Criminal trial – Coal block allotment cases – Stay of proceedings – Supreme Court directing that any application intended to stay or impede the trial will be subject to orders of Supreme Court – This cannot in any way construed as monitoring or supervising the trial – Stay of proceedings should not be the main or the sole objective of an accused – Stay of a trial is a rather extraordinary step and cannot be given for the asking. (Para 57, 58, 59)
       AIR 1969 SC 430; (2012) 13 SCC 614; (1998) 1 SCC 226 – Referred
       (o) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19(3)(b) and (c), and 19(4) – Proceedings could be stayed only and only in case of an error, omission or irregularity in the sanction for prosecution resulting in failure of justice – Clause (c) additionally prohibits exercise of revision jurisdiction in respect of any interlocutory order passed in any trial – Section 19(4) requires challenge to such an order within reasonable time – Expeditious conclusion of trial under the Act is not only in the interest of the accused but also in public interest. (Para 65, 66, 68)
       (1999) 8 SCC 501 – Relied upon
       (p) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 22(d) r/w section 397(1), Proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Prohibition on calling original records of special court even in revision jurisdiction – Provision for admitting certified copy of the records – To ensure that trial is not interrupted. (Para 70)
       (q) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19(3) – Expression ‘failure of justice’ – Should be genuine and not camouflage – De novo trial could be ordered in case of failure of justice but not for procedural illegalities which could be corrected in appeal – ‘Failure of justice’ is much more than miscarriage of justice or a violation of law or an irregularity in procedure – Section 19(3)(c) must be given a very restricted interpretation. (Para 71, 73, 77,
       (2001) 2 SCC 577; (2001) 7 SCC 679; (2012) 4 SCC 516; (2012) 3 SCC 11; (2014) 2 SCC 687 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       As a result of orders passed by this Court from time to time, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a charge sheet against the appellant Girish Kumar Suneja and others. The Special Judge appointed to hear the criminal cases arising out of the illegal allocation of coal blocks, directed framing of charges in the case titled CBI v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Others in R.C. No. 219/2013/E/0006 against Suneja and others for offences punishable under Sections 120-B/409/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
       Criminal Misc. Case was filed in the Delhi High Court by Girish Kumar Suneja.
       A Single Judge of the High Court concluded that in view of the order passed by Supreme Court on 25th July, 2014 the petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.
       Finding of the Court:
       It is not appropriate to revisit the order of 25th July, 2014 nor to modify that order.
       Result: Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. On 25th August, 2014, this Court delivered judgment in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary., (2014) 9 SCC 516 Subsequently, further orders were passed in the case on 24th September, 2014, (2014) 9 SCC 614. These decisions are commonly referred to as having been rendered in the Coal Block Allocation cases.

2. Much earlier, on 25th July, 2014 the following order was passed by this Court in the Coal Block Allocation cases (the relevant extract is reproduced):

“4. In pursuance of our order dated 18.7.2014, the Registrar General, Delhi High Court has intimated to the Secretary General of this Court that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court has been pleased to nominate Mr. Bharat Prashar, an officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service for being posted as Special Judge to deal and exclusively try the offences pertaining to coal block allocation matters under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and other allied offences.

5. We, accordingly, direct the competent authorities to issue requisite notifications appointing Mr. Bharat Prashar, an officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service as Special Judge for the above purpose. The notifications shall be issued within two weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order.

6. We also order that Mr. R.S. Cheema, senior advocate shall be appointed as Special Public Prosecutor by the Government of India to conduct the prosecution of the offences pertaining to coal block allocation matters on behalf of CBI and Enforcement Directorate. On such appointment, Mr. R.S. Cheema may choose two other advocates, who, in his opinion, will be of assistance in the matter. While doing so, Mr. R.S. Cheema may keep in view the magnitude and complexities of the case.

7. The Special Public Prosecutor shall have access to the entire evidence/material including case diaries collected in the course of investigation.

8. We direct the CBI to render all necessary assistance to the Special Public Prosecutor.

9. All cases pending before different courts in Delhi pertaining to coal block allocation matters shall stand transferred to the court of Special Judge as afore-noted.

10. We also make it clear that any prayer for stay or impeding the progress in the investigation/trial can be made only before this Court and no other Court shall entertain the same.”

3. Leave granted.

4. The issue in the present appeals concerns the interpretation and effect of paragraph 10 of the above order which provides that any request for stay or impeding the progress in the investigation or the trial of the coal block allocation cases can be made only to this Court and no other Court shall entertain any such request.

5. As a result of orders passed by this Court from time to time, the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘the CBI’) filed a charge sheet against the appellant Girish Kumar Suneja and others. On 29th April, 2016 the learned Special Judge appointed to hear the criminal cases arising out of the illegal allocation of coal blocks, directed framing of charges in the case titled CBI v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Others in R.C. No. 219/2013/E/0006 against Suneja and others for offences punishable under Sections 120-B/409/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the PC Act”).

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Criminal Misc. Case No. 3847 of 2016 was filed in the Delhi High Court by Girish Kumar Suneja. In the High Court, a preliminary issue arose regarding the maintainability of the petition in view of paragraph 10 of the order passed by this Court on 25th July, 2014.

7. A learned Single Judge of the High Court heard elaborate submissions of learned counsel and by a well reasoned order, after relying upon several decisions of this Court and of the Delhi High Court, concluded that in view of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 651

Cases Referred (29)