http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 3

PETITIONER:

JHARIA S/O MANIYA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/07/1983

BENCH:

SEN, A.P. (J)

BENCH:

SEN, A.P. (J)

VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:

1983 SCR (3) 475 1983 SCC (4) 7

1983 SCALE (2)78

ACT:

Constitution of India-Art. 32-Whether a petition under

Art. 32 is maintainable to assail the finality of the

decision of the Court in a special leave petition under Art.

136 ?

HEADNOTE:

The petitioner and his two associates were convicted

and sentenced under s. 302 read with s. 34, I.P.C. On

appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction of the

petitioner but acquitted his associates giving them the

benefit of doubt. The Petitioner applied to this Court for

grant of special leave to appeal under Art. 136 but the same

was dismissed. By this petition under Art. 32 the petitioner

sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State to

forbear from giving effect to the judgment and sentence

passed by the trial court as also the judgment of the High

Court as well as the order passed by this Court dismissing

the special leave petition on the ground that his conviction

was illegal and therefore his detention in jail was in

violation of Art. 21 read with Arts. 14 and 19.

Dismissing the petition,

^

HELD: The propriety of asking for a declaration in

these proceedings under Art. 32 that conviction of the

petitioner by the High Court for an offence punishable under

s. 302 read with s. 34 I.P.C. is illegal, particularly when

this Court has declined to grant special leave under Art.

136 cannot be appreciated. Nor can the petitioner be heard

to say that his detention in jail amounts to deprivation of

the fundamental right to life and liberty without following

the procedure established by law in violation of Art. 21

read with Arts. 14 and 19. When a special leave petition is

assigned to the learned judges sitting in a Bench, they

constitute the Supreme Court and there is a finality to

their judgment which cannot be upset in these proceedings

under Art. 32. Obviously, the Supreme Court cannot issue a

writ, direction or order to itself in respect of any

judicial proceedings and the learned judges constituting the

Bench are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this

Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 3

[470 D-F]

Shankar Ramchandra Abbyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya

Bapat, [1970] 1 S.C.R. 322, referred to.

JUDGMENT:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.

1632 of 1981.

476

Under article 32 of the Constitution of India.

S.K Jain for the Petitioner.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SEN, J. This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution

is clearly not maintainable and must be dismissed but in

view of the growing trend of filing such frivolous

applications, we deem it necessary to state the reasons

therefor.

It appears that the petitioner along with two others

was arraigned before the Sessions Judge of Alwar in Sessions

Trial No. 110 of 1976 for having committed an alleged

offence punishable under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code,

alternatively, under s. 302 read with s. 34 of the Code. By

his finding and sentence dated April 21, 1977 the learned

Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner and his two

associates for having committed the murder of the deceased

Jharia in furtherance of their common intention under s. 302

read with s. 34 and sentenced each of them to undergo

imprisonment for life, while recording their acquittal under

s. 302. On appeal, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High

Court (Jaipur Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1977 by

judgment dated July 3, 1980 maintained the conviction of the

p