SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ker) 352

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
K. Cheriya Koya – Petitioner
Versus
U.T. Administration Of Lakshadweep Represented By Standing Counsel, High Court Of Kerala And Ors. – Respondents
Review Petition Nos. 97 & 94 of 2023
Decided On : 21-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P.Sanjay, A.Parvathi Menon, Biju Meenattoor, Paul Varghese (Pallath), Kiran Narayanan, Prasoon Sunny, Rahul Raj P., Amrutha M. Nair, P. A. Mohammed Aslam
For the Respondent: Sajith Kumar V., Harindranath B G, Sr. Adv., Sri. S. reekumar, Sri. K. K. Dheerendrakrishnan, Amicus Curiae, Sri. V. Sajith Kumar, SC, Adv., B.G.Harindranath, SC

Point of Law: Article 235 of Constitution of India is control over subordinate courts.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 340, 195 (1) (b) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 235, 226 or 227 - Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Section 3(1) - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 8 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Review judgment - Place under suspension - Conduct a detailed enquiry - Petitions are filed to review judgment – A portion of judgment/order can be reviewed invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution - Para 22.

Finding of the Court :

Provisions of Civil Procedure Code is not as such applicable while deciding a review petition filed in a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Jurisdiction of court under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, to review a judgment is wide and not controlled by provisions of Civil Procedure Code - Contention of review petitioner that a portion of judgment/order cannot be reviewed is unsustainable - A portion of judgment/order can be reviewed invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution in a judgment/order rendered in a writ petition or Original Petition, if it will not go against other findings in judgment/order - Since district court and subordinate courts in Lakshadweep are under supervision of High Court of Kerala, it is declared that High Court of Kerala has got power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against presiding officers of district court and courts subordinate thereto in Lakshadweep Islands.

Result: Petitions allowed.

ORDER :

These two review petitions are filed to review the judgment dated 23.12.2022 in O.P.(Crl.) Nos. 608/2022 & 609/2022. The review petitioner is the 3rd respondent in the above original petitions. The above original petitions were disposed of with the following directions :

1) The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep is directed to place the additional 3rd respondent under suspension forthwith and conduct a detailed enquiry about his actions mentioned in this order forthwith and take appropriate steps in accordance with law, untrammelled by any observation in this judgement.

2) The petitioners in these cases are allowed to raise all their contentions raised in these original petitions before the appellate court by filing appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed in CC No. 24/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini, Lakshadweep. If no appeal is filed so far, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for a further period of one month from today.

3) Issue notice under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. to the additional 3rd respondent, Sri.K.Cheriyakoya, Former Sub Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini, LAKSHADWEEP, now working as the secretary, District Legal Service Authority, LAKSHADWEEP, Sri.P.P.Muthukoya, Bench Clerk, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini and Smt. A.C.Puthunni, LD Clerk (Bench Assistant), Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini for conducting a preliminary enquiry because this Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that such an enquiry should be made into the offences referred in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. The Registry will enclose a copy of this order also along with the notice issued under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. to the persons mentioned above.

4) The Registry will give a separate number to the Sec.340 Cr.P.C. proceedings in accordance with law and post the case on 23.1.2023 for the appearance of the additional 3rd respondent and other persons mentioned above. Advocate Dheerendrakrishnan K.K is appointed as Amicus curiae to assist the court during the preliminary enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Registry will show the name of the Amicus curiae in the cause list.

5) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgement to the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep forthwith.

2. The review petitions are filed stating that there are apparent errors on the face of the record; therefore, the judgment is to be reviewed.

3. Heard Sr.Counsel, Sri.S.Sreekumar instructed by Adv.P. Sanjay. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Lakshadweep Administration, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the High Court of Kerala and also the petitioners in the original petitions. This Court also heard Advocate Dheerendrakrishnan, the Amicus curiae appointed by this Court as per the judgment impugned in the review petitions. An argument note is also filed by the review petitioner.

4. The main contention raised by the review petitioner in these review petitions is that, there are errors apparent on the face of the record and hence the judgment is to be reviewed. It is also stated that, in view of Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the Administrator of Lakshadweep has no disciplinary power over a judicial officer and only this Court has control over subordinate courts. The review petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand [AIR 1976 SC 1841] and also the Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through LRs v. Lt. Governor of NCT Delhi [2011 (10) SCC 1]. The review petitioner also submitted that, he is not liable to be proceeded in the light of Sec.3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 and hence, the notice issued by this Court under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. to the review petitioner for conducting a preliminary enquiry is unsustainable. The review petitioner also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak and another [AIR 1988 SC 1531], Anowar Hussain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top