State of Karnataka VS Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000(3) Crimes 172 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
State of Karnataka —Appellant
versus
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 652 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2566 of 2000)
Decided on 10-8-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : N. Ganpathy, Advocate.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 386—Appeal—Power of Appellate Court—High Court cannot go outside scope of lis before it and make observations which are not in tune with preceptions of judicial exercise—State seeking leave to appeal to Supreme Court—High Court making disparaging remarks against police department as a whole—Unusual direction to Public Prosecutor to forward a copy of remarks to Secretary to Govt. (Home) and to Home Minister to file their reaction to observations of Court—Putting blame largely on police without data or material or evidence unwarranted—Direction uncalled for—High Court traversed far beyond travelling outside scope of list—Directions issued against PP, Home Minister and Home Secretary set aside.
       Learned counsel for the State was quite right in contending that it was not the occasion for learned Judges of the High Court for giving vent to their general apathy towards the present system of administration of criminal justice. The direction that the Home Minister and the Home Secretary of the State shall report to the High Court regarding their reaction towards the observations made in the judgment is nothing but an exercise in redundancy, for, their reaction cannot be different from the views expressed by the Judges themselves. How could they be different, as it is unexceptional that the system should improve. The problems posed by the Judges have already engaged the attention of the Law Commission. On more than one occasions the Commission has submitted its report for consideration by Parliament. But putting the blame largely on the police force of the State for all the ills pointed out by the learned Judges, without data or material or evidence in this case, is not a course which can meet with our approval. (Para 9)
       Learned Judges pointed to subjects which are unfortunately not connected with this case. Those are - (1) murders committed with impunity, (2) the increase in cases involving atrocities against women, (3) harassment inflicted on young married women including “bride burning”, (4) molestation and rape of girls and young women. We have already extracted a gist of the facts of this case. None of the fields to which learned Judges pointed their fingers would cover the facts of this case. Hence learned Judges dealt with subjects which are totally ungermane and far beyond the scope of this case as though it was presentation of a paper in a seminar. Why should be the Home Minister and the Home Secretary react to the observations which are absolutely uncalled for on the facts of this case. (Para 10)
       Judicial disposition is definitely different from a paper presented for seminar discussion. Nor can it be equated with a dissertation. Judicial decorum requires that judgments and orders should confine to the facts and legal points involved in the particular cases which Judges deal with. May be, sometimes Judges would, perhaps wittingly or even unwittingly, jut outside the contours of the litigation, but even such overlappings should be within bounds of propriety and sobriety. But there is no justification for traversing so far beyond the convass as was done by the High Court in this case or to cover areas which are grossly extraneous to the subject matter of the case. If the subordinate courts are also to be tempted and encouraged to follow suit by travelling far outside the scope of the lis the consequences would be far too many. Demoralisation of departments would badly erode the already impaired efficiency of our forces. It is time to remind ourselves once again that judgment should confine to the scope of the case. (Para 11)
       Result : Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Judgment

Thomas, J.—Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court went outside the scope of the lis before it and made certain observations which are not in tune with the perceptions of judicial exercise. Why they did so in this case is beyond comprehension. State of Karnataka, unable to abide by the directions issued as per the order, has filed this appeal by special leave. For disposal of this appeal we did not find any necessity to issue notice to the sole respondent (Registrar General) of the High Court of Karnataka) as he would have nothing to say about the impugned directions. So we propose to dispose of the matter without bringing the respondent to this Court.

4. How the above situation reached can be summarized thus :

Seven persons were prosecuted in a sessions court for various offences, the serious-most among which was the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. After the trial the Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused. The testimony of the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution was not believed by the Sessions Judge. At the same time he frowned at the investigation, as is being done in many of the judgments ending in acquittal. The delay in dispatching the FIR to the magistrate was also highlighted in the judgment of the Sessions Court.

5. The State of Karnataka filed a petition for leave to appeal against the said order of acquittal. The Division Bench of the High Court, while refusing leave, made a departure from the precedents and issued an unusual direction to the State Public Prosecutor like this :

“We direct the learned SPP to forward a copy of this order to the Secretary to Government (Home) as also to the Honourable Home Minister both of whom shall acknowledge the receipt of the same and shall report back to this Court within a period of two months as to what precisely is the reaction of the Government to the observations of this High Court.”

6. The Home Secretary and the Home Minister of the State are now compelled to react openly to the observations made in the judgment and to report to the High Court on such reactions. It is necessary to extract the observations made by M.F. Saldhana, J., who spoke for the Division Bench. The first facet of the observations is the following :

“This Court has had occasion to deal with a large number of appeals filed against orders of acquittals. In case after case, it is noticed that it is principally because of poor investigation followed up by a total lack of interest in the conduct of the prosecution that has resulted in the accused being acquitted. Murders are committed with impunity and the other set of cases of which we need to take very serious note relating to atrocities against women where even the reported number of cases has sharply increased. We have come across a series of horrifying incidents where young married women were harassed, tortured and set on fire, another line of cases where girls and women have been molested, sexually attacked and raped. String of acquittals in all these cases which are as high as 96.4% only because the requisite evidence and the evidence of the quality that the court expects has not been forthcoming. The investigating agencies namely the Police Department are responsible to a very large extent for this deplorable state of affairs.”

7. Learned counsel for the State made a scathing onslaught on those observations, particularly the disparaging remarks made against the police department of the State as a whole and contended that they are absolutely unnecessary in the present case, apart from being unsupported by any material whatsoever. He submitted that there was no material available on record for the court to reach such omnibus findings. Learned Judge went on to observe further as follows :

“Time is of the essence as far as investigation of criminal cases are concerned and consequently, it is equally important that apart from the speed with which the Police act, that the investigatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Cases Referred (4)