PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.Jha, R.N.Lal and Indu Prabha Singh JJ.
Rama Nand Chowdhary
Versus
S.D. Pandey
Criminal Revision No. 1052 of 1984 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 17, 1990
(Per Lal, J.)-powers of the High Court discretionary-composite order consisting of two parts: first part being dismissal of the petition regarding the point of conviction and the second part being on the question of sentence, and the second remains to be examined-the court need not go into the merits at the instance of any of the parties in all cases rather the court can in exceptional cases or in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction go into merits of the cases suo motu even though a limited rule has been issued. 1984 BBCJ 871-Approved; AIR 1990 SC 1188, 1989 (1) SCC 329, AIR 1978 SC 1062, AIR 1976 SC 2205, AIR 1973 SC 2443, AIR 1953 SC 293-Relied Upon; 1978 Cr. LJ 1445, 1977 Cr. LJ. (NOC) 233, 1974 BLJR 267, 1971 BLJR 967, AIR 1968 Pat 352. AIR 1968 Pat 207, AIR 1960 Ker 147, AIR 1939 Lah 295, AIR 1939 Pat 349, ILR (3) Pat 697-Referred. (Paras 7, 8, 15 & 18)
(Per Jha, J. concurring)-object of the legislation in this section is to set right any patent defect or error-no party has a right to address the court on merits if the High Court has given indulgence to hear the matter on the question of sentence only-hands of Court are not fettered by limited rule being issued al the time of admission but this does not lay down that in every case the court would consider the entire case-once the Bench at the time of admission applied its mind and issued limited rule, it is not open for Bench hearing the matter to go behind the order of the admitting Bench-High Court cannot go into the merits of the cases. 1984 BBCJ 871-Approved; 1990 BBCJ 200, 1982 BLJR 11, AIR 1979 SC 663, 1978 Cr. L.J. 445, AIR 1977 SC 1792, 1977 BBCJ 425, AIR 1973 SC 2427, AIR 1970 Pat 391, AIR 1968 Pat 382, AIR 1959 SC 144, AIR 1939 Lah 298, AIR 1939 Pat 349, AIR 1933 Pat 38, AIR 1931 Pat 351, AIR 1925 Pat 453, ILR (3) Pat 804, AIR 1914 Cal-274 Referred and Discussed. (Paras 27, 28, 29, 34, 40 & 41)
Upon examination of the various decisions Lal, J. came to the conclusion no party has any right to address a revisional court unless the Court so wants suo motu" and still had directed that the case should be heard on the question of sentence only thereby fettering the right of the Honble Judges acting suo motu to hear the case on merits even. This aspect of the matter may perhaps require reconsideration by the Honble Judges. Ed.-in- Chief]
R.N.LAL and Indu Prabha Singh JJ.
1. This petition is considered on the reference made by. S. S. Hasan, J. (as.he then was) doubting the decision reported in 1984 BBCJ 871.Rabindra Nath Choubey and others V/s. Charai Chaman and another, decided by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of S. S. Sandhawalia, C. J. and B. P. Griyagney, J. (as they then were). Similar matter had come up before another Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1023 of 1980 consisting of S. S. Sandhawalia, C. J. and S. S.Hasan, J. The petition was dismissed by S. S. Sandhawalia, C. J. but S. S. Hasan, J. did not agree and held that the matter should be referred to the Honble Chief Justice to place before a larger Bench because there were several decisions of this Court taking a contrary view in the matter but it stood dismissed for default on 15-10-1987 for non-compliance of the Courts peremptory order dated 24-9-1987.
2. In the present case, S. S. Hassan, J. formulated the reference to be considered by a Full Bench that if a limited rule is issued on the question of sentence, the Court can go into the merits of the ease and acquit the petitioner, once for all. Thus, the matter has come up before this Full Bench for consideration.
3. The petitioner was a member of C. R. P. F. bearing No.700820457 Ct. of G. C. C. R. P. F. Mokamaghat who was undergoing simple imprisonment for 25 days under Section 10(d) and 10(m) of C R. P. F. Act, 1949 awarded by Shri S. S. Soni, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class and Assistant Commandant Group Centre, Mokamaghat for leaving of lines while made to undergo punishment of confinment of lines for 15 days with effect from 19-2-1982 to 5-3-1982 and also for absenting himself without leave with effect from 1-3-1982 to 15-3-1982. The period of eighteen days of sentence of imprisonment was adjusted towards his detention in the judicial custody. The remaining sentence of seven days simple imprisonment had been served out by the petitioner.
4. Later the complaint was filed on 6-3-1982 by Sri S. D. Pandey, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Commandant (Administration) of G. C.C R. P. F. Mokamaghat against the petitioner Rama Nand Choudhary on 6-3-1982 in the Court of aforesaid Magistrate with the allegation that the petitioner was a member of Force G.C.C.R.P.F. Mokamaghat and was awarded 15 dayss confinement of lines under Section 11(3) of the C R.P. F. Act by the Commandant with effect from 19-2-1982 to 5-3-1982 with forfeiture of all pay and allowance. The petitioner while undergoing the aforesaid sentence left the lines on 1-3-1982 at 6.10 hours before he was set at liberty by the lawful authority. He absented himself from the lines with effect front 1-3-1982 and so he committed an offence under Section 10(a) and 10(m) of the C R. P. F. Act. After framing of The charge against the petitioner he was tried and was held guilty and awarded above sentence by a judgment delivered in case No. 1 of 1982 by Sri S. S.Soni, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class and Assistant Commandant, C.R.P.F. Mokamaghat, Bihar on 22-4-1982. The petitioner went up in the appeal before the Sessions Judge, Patna and the appeal was heard and decided by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Criminal Appeal No.180/82, dated 31st July, 1984 by which Sri A. N. Jha, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence. The learned appellate Court in its finding stated that "the findings of facts arrived at by the Court below were not challenged. However, he pressed the appeal more or less, on humanitarian ground and mainly pressed the appeal on modification of the sentence of imprisonment but under the provision of C. R. P. F. Act the sentence of imprisonment entails dismissal from the service."
5. The petitioner came up in criminal revision bearing No. 1052/84 against the aforesaid judgment and the petition was admitted by H. L.Agrawal, J. (as he then was) on 13-2-1985 which reads as follows
Bali Chandra Hazra V/s. Shewdhari Yadav
Bishan Singh And Others V/s. The State Of Punjab
Ghanshyam And Others V/s. State Of Uttar Pradesh
Jagdev Singh And Another V/s. State Of Punjab
Kamleshwari Thakur And Others V/s. State
Narain Prasad V/s. The State Of Rajasthan And Another
Pranab Kumar Mitra V/s. State Of West Bengal And Another
Rabindra Nath Choubey And Others V/s. Charai Chaman
Ram Swarup And Others V/s. State Of Haryana
Shambhu Prasad Sah V/s. The State Of Bihar
Sheo Thakur And Others V/s. Bishwa Nath Thakur
State Of Orissa V/s. Nakula Sahu And Others
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.