Back
SANDEEP N. BHATT
Mukesh Gulabbhai Kapadiya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ for short) for holding and declaring that the observations made against the applicant herein in the impugned orders dated 3.10.2019 passed below Exh.447 and dated 24.10.2019 passed below Exh.449 in Special CBI Case No.15 of 2005, are absolutely unwarranted, bad, illegal and against the evidence on record and to expunge the same.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Respective learned advocates waive service of rule for the respective parties.
3. The facts of the case are that the applicant has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the CBI vide order dated 17.11.2018 and thereafter the applicant has proceeded with the matter allotted by conducting with best of his effort and skills. That, as per the prosecution case, a complaint is lodged by one Mr.D.V.Yardi, Manager (Vigilance), The New India Assurance Company Limited, having Head Office, Mumbai and, on the basis of the same, the case was registered before CBI, Gandhinagar Branch; in the said complaint, it was alleged that one Shri S.A.Parma, the then Senior Divisional Manager of NIACL, during the period of 1999-2001
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining the freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates, and the need to consider the principles of misconduct under S....
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to expunge remarks made by itself or lower courts to secure justice, but this power is to be exercised in exceptional cases only.
A Special Public Prosecutor's authority is limited to the case for which they are appointed, and they cannot challenge orders in higher courts without specific authorization.
Remarks by higher courts against subordinate judicial officers must be necessary and justified to uphold judicial dignity and independence.
The court emphasized that successive FIRs regarding the same incident are impermissible and quashed the FIR based on concealment of previous complaints and forum shopping, affirming the requirement o....
Adverse remarks – There is difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer – First part is permissible – Second category of criticism should best be avoided – No co....
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
