SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. & ANR. – Appellant(s) VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent(s)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1577 OF 2020 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1375-1376 OF 2013
Decided On : 15-10-2020
Criminal Law – Trial of Case – Period of stay – In our pyramidical structure under Constitution of India, Supreme Court is at Apex, and High Courts, though not subordinate administratively, are certainly subordinate judicially – Whatever stay has been granted by any court including High Court automatically expires within a period of six months and unless extension is granted for good reason, within next six months, trial Court is, on expiry of first period of six months, to set a date for trial and go ahead with same – Impugned order set aside with a direction to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to set down case for hearing immediately. (Paras 2 and 3)
Result : Miscellaneous Application disposed of with observation.
ORDER
1. Having heard Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.V. Raju, learned ASG for the respondent, we are constrained to point out that in our directions contained in the judgment delivered in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013 [Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation] and, in particular, para 35, it is stated thus:
“35. … …. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced.”
2. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, by his order dated 04.12.2019, has instead of following our judgment in letter as well as spirit, stated that the Complainant should move an application before the High Court to resume the trial. The Magistrate goes on to say: “The lower Court cannot pass any order which has been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay with due respect of ratio of the judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra).” We must remind the Magistrates all over the country that in our pyramidical structure under the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court is at the Apex, and the High Courts, though not subordinate administratively, are certainly subordinate judicially. This kind of orders fly in the face of para 35 of our judgment. We expect that the Magistrates all over the country will follow our order in letter and spirit. Whatever stay has been granted by any court including the High Court automatically expires within a period of six months, and unless extension is granted for good reason, as per our judgment, within the next six months, the trial Court is, on the expiry of the first period of six months, to set a date for the trial and go ahead with the same.
3. With this observation, the order dated 04.12.2019 is set aside with a direction to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune to set down the case for hearing immediately.
4. Miscellaneous Application is disposed of accordingly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.