Karnataka High Court
Kotravva Somappa Mudagal vs Badarinarayana Nandkishore Ladda on 9 October, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
:1:
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09 t h DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.81905 OF 2013 [GM-RES]
BETWEEN:
KOTRAVVA SOMAPPA MUDAGAL
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: DISTRICT JUDGE,
R/O: FLAT NO. 202, J.1D.,
JUDICIAL BLOCK NGV COMPLEX,
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. V M SHEELVANT ADV.)
AND:
1. BADARINARAYANA NANDKISHORE LADDA
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: IRONORE BUSINESSMAN
PROPRIETOR OF SREENIDHI
TRADING COMPANY,
R/O: NO. 345, KIRAN NIVAS,
OPP: AIR, HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY.
:2:
2. KAILASHCHANDRA SHAHRA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: CHAIRMAN,
NATIONAL STEEL AND AGRO
INDUSTRIES LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 401,
MAHAKOSH HOUSE 7/8,
SOUTH TUKOGANJ, NATH MANDIR ROAD,
INDORE 432001 (MP)
3. SANTOSH SHAHRA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL STEEL AND AGRO
INDUSTRIES LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 401,
MAHAKOSH HOUSE 7/8,
SOUTH TUKOGANJ,
NATH MANDIR ROAD,
INDORE 432001 (MP)
4. P SHRIKRISHNA
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL STEEL AND AGRO
INDUSTRIES LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 401,
MAHAKOSH HOUSE 7/8,
SOUTH TUKOGANJ,
NATH MANDIR ROAD,
INDORE 432001 (MP)
5. P D NAGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DIRECTOR
NATIONAL STEEL AND AGRO
INDUSTRIES LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 401,
MAHAKOSH HOUSE 7/8,
:3:
SOUTH TUKOGANJ,
NATH MANDIR ROAD,
INDORE 432001 (MP)
6. NAVNEET ZALANI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DIRECTOR
NATIONAL STEEL AND AGRO
INDUSTRIES LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 401,
MAHAKOSH HOUSE 7/8,
SOUTH TUKOGANJ,
NATH MANDIR ROAD,
INDORE 432001 (MP)
7. NAVIN KHADELWAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DIRECTOR
NATIONAL STEEL AND AGRO
INDUSTRIES LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 401,
MAHAKOSH HOUSE 7/8,
SOUTH TUKOGANJ,
NATH MANDIR ROAD,
INDORE 432001 (MP)
8. ASHOK K AGARWAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SECRETARY,
NATIONAL STEEL AND AGRO
INDUSTRIES LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 401,
MAHAKOSH HOUSE 7/8,
SOUTH TUKOGANJ,
NATH MANDIR ROAD,
INDORE 432001 (MP)
9. VISHWANATH KHANDELWAL,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
:4:
NATIONAL STEEL AND AGRO
INDUSTRIES LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 401,
MAHAKOSH HOUSE 7/8, SOUTH TUKOGANJ,
NATH MANDIR ROAD, INDORE 432001 (MP)
10. REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(R1-R9 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH,
SMT. K.VIDYAVATHI, AGA FOR R10)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER ON "BEING SPOKEN TO" AT
ANNEXURE-E, DATED:30/01/2013 AND 31/01/2013,
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL. APPEAL
NO.2550/2012, CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE 10th
RESPONDENT TO DELETE THE SAID OBSERVATION FROM
JUDICIAL OFFICIAL WEBSITE.
This petition coming on for Further Hearing
on 01.10.2013 and the same having been heard
and reserved for pronouncement of judgment, this
day, A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J., made the
following:
:5:
O R D E R
This writ petition arises from a judgment dated 22.01.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in Criminal Appeal No.2550/2012. Challenge is to the orders passed on 30.01.2013 and 31.01.2013, under the caption "Order on Being Spoken To" directing the Registrar General to conduct an enquiry.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, could be stated as under:-
(A) The petitioner, a Member of the Karnataka Higher Judicial Service, worked as a Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bellary, between 28.05.2007 to 12.02.2009. Having put in fifteen years of service as a judicial officer, she has unblemished service record.
(B) After allowing Criminal Appeal No.2550/2012 titled as SRI.BADRINARAYANA :6: LADDA Vs. SRI.KAILASHCHANDRA SHAHRA, on 22.01.2013, thereby setting aside an order dated 06.01.2009 in C.C.No.2503/2008 passed by JMFC, Hospet, learned Single Judge passed the impugned orders on 30.01.2013 and 31.01.2013.
(C) The petitioner claims that she is clueless as to how the order-sheet dated 12.12.2008 of C.C. No.2503/2008 on the file of JMFC, Bellary contained a record that there was a telephonic message from the District and Sessions Court, Bellary, to dispose of the case before 31.12.2008.
(D) Claiming that she never interfered in the judicial functioning of any judicial officer and since the order-sheet containing the noting dated 12.12.2008 has not even been signed by the Magistrate and being unaware as to whether the said communication has been made and if so, who made the same and since a prima facie view has :7: been taken that it is the Sessions Judge who telephonically instructed the case to be closed and such impression having been formed, without ascertaining as to who is the person behind the noting order dated 12.12.2008 and being apprehensive that the impugned orders would prejudicially affect her service career and future prospects, this writ petition was filed to quash the said orders and direct respondent No.10, to delete the observation from the judicial official website.
3. We heard Mr.V.M.Sheelvanth, learned advocate for the petitioner and Smt.K.Vidyavathi, learned AGA for respondent No.10 and perused the writ petition record, the record of Criminal Appeal No.2550/2012 and also the record of C.C. No.2503/2008.
4. Sri.M.V. Sheelvanth contended that the impugned orders have been passed without :8: properly noticing the record and order-sheet of C.C. No.2503/2008 and the observation imputing judicial impropriety by the District and Sessions Judge are not justified. He contended that the direction issued in the impugned orders being ill- founded and unwarranted and the orders passed being also contrary to Section 362 of Cr.P.C. are liable to be quashed.
5. Smt.K.Vidyavathi, on the other hand contended that, no right of the petitioner is affected on account of the direction issued to conduct an enquiry. She submitted that, since the petitioner can state her case before the Registrar General, this writ petition is not maintainable.
6. In this writ petition, other parties having been shown as proforma respondents and since no relief has been sought as against them, issuance :9: of notice to respondents 1 to 9 was dispensed with vide order dated 30.08.2013.
7. In the background of the fact situation, the contentions urged by the learned advocates on both the sides and the record of the cases, noticed supra, the questions which arise for consideration are:-
(i) Whether the writ petition for the relief sought is maintainable?
(ii) Whether after the pronouncement of the judgment in the Criminal Appeal, learned Single Judge had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders?
(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Single Judge is justified in directing the Registrar General to conduct an enquiry?: 10 :
8. Reg. Point No.1: The writ petition is by a judicial officer seeking quashing of the impugned orders, detrimental to her, contained in the further part of the judgment passed, allowing Criminal Appeal No.2550/2012 filed by the original complainant.
9. A complaint filed before the Magistrate seeking action against respondents 2 to 9, for the offences under Sections 405, 406, 415, 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, resulted in the registration of a case in Crime No.33/2008 at Badavane Police Station, Hospet and the investigation lead to the filing of charge- sheet against respondents 2 to 9, for the aforesaid offences, in C.C. No.2503/2008, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Hospet. The Magistrate having passed an order on 06.01.2009, on the basis of an application filed, : 11 : stating that the matter was settled between the parties and thereby acquitted the accused by accepting the application filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the complainant filed in this Court, Criminal R.P. No.184/2009. A memo having been filed to grant permission to convert the case into a criminal appeal and permission having been granted on 23.01.2012, the revision petition having been converted, was registered as Criminal Appeal No.2550/2012.
10. Learned Single Judge by considering the order passed on 06.01.2009, as one by the Additional Sessions Judge and JMFC at Hospet, without even issuing notices to respondents 1 to 8 in the appeal, accepting the case of the appellant, by a judgment dated 22.01.2013 allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the trial court. We are : 12 : unable to comprehend as to how Criminal Appeal No.2550/2012 filed by Respondent No.1, was allowed and the impugned order therein was set aside, without even issuing notice of the appeal to respondents 2 to 9 and granting them an opportunity of hearing. Be that as it may.
11. After pronouncement of the judgment, having noticed the order-sheet dated 12.12.2008 of C.C. No.2503/2008, feeling strange and by considering that the telephonic instruction as having been issued by the Sessions Judge, by directing the appeal to be posted for "Being Spoken To" on 24.01.2013, learned Single Judge issued a direction to the appellant to be present on 30.01.2013. The orders passed thereafter being material for deciding of this writ petition, the same are extracted herein below: : 13 : "BVPJ: Crl.A.No.2550/2012
30/01/2013 ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO The appellant - Shri Badarinarayana Ladda is present before the Court.
On questioning him in Hindi language, he has stated that whatever mentioned in the petition is true. He submits that he was forced by the Police to come to the Police Station and thereafter, he was taken to the Court and he was made agree to compromise the case against his W ill and without his consent.
Call on 31.1.2013 for 'being spoken to'.
Sd/-
JUDGE BVPJ: Crl.A.No.2550/2012 31/01/2013 ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO In view of the above proceedings, it is observed that the learned Sessions Judge has telephonically directed the learned Magistrate to close the case, which involve huge amounts of money. Hence, the Registrar General is directed to conduct an enquiry as to under what circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge could direct the learned Magistrate to close the case and the learned Magistrate has closed the case without the presence of the accused and by forcing the complainant to accept the compromise.: 14 :
The office is directed to send the file to the Principal Bench after issuing certified copy to the parties.
Sd/-
JUDGE"
12. In the matter of 'K', A JUDICIAL OFFICER, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 54, Hon'ble Apex Court considered a special leave petition filed by a judicial officer seeking expunging of remarks detrimental to her, contained in a judgment of the High Court disposing of a Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and being concerned with several cases coming to its notice, wherein observations are being made against the members of subordinate judiciary in the orders of superior forums made on judicial side and judicial officers who made orders as presiding judges of the subordinate courts are being driven to the necessity of filing appeals in the Apex Court or petitions before the High Courts : 15 : seeking expunging of remarks or observations made and some times strictures passed against them behind their back, while dealing with few aspects touching the making of observations or adverse comments against the judicial officers and methodology to be followed, if it becomes necessary, after survey of the previous decisions, taking note of the Constitutional scheme vested in the High Court on the administrative, judicial and disciplinary side, has held that, subordinate judge faced with disparaging and undeserving remarks made by a Court of Superior Jurisdiction is not without remedy and the officer may approach the High Court or the Supreme Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction seeking expunction of objectionable remarks/order.
In view of the categorical statement of law by the Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion, : 16 : that this writ petition for the reliefs sought is maintainable.
13. Reg. Point No.2: There is no power of review with a criminal court after the judgment has been rendered. In the case of HARI SINGH MANN vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH BAJWA AND OTHERS, 2001(1) SCC 169, Apex Court has held that, the High Court has no jurisdiction to alter or review its own judgment or order, except to the extent of correcting clerical or arithmetical errors, since, once the matter is finally disposed of, in the absence of specific statutory power, becomes functus officio in respect of that matter.
14. In the case of STATE OF KERALA Vs. M.M.MANIKANTAN NAIR, 2001 (4) SCC 752, Apex Court has held that, Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorise the High Court to review its judgment or order passed either in exercise of its : 17 : appellate, revisional or original jurisdiction and Section 362 of the Code prohibits the court after it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case from altering or reviewing the judgment or order except to correct the clerical or arithmetical errors and the prohibition is complete and no criminal court can review its own judgment or order after it is signed.
15. In the instant case, Criminal Appeal No.2550/2012 was allowed by a Judgment dated 22.01.2013. The impugned orders having been passed under the caption, "Being Spoken To", it cannot be said that the learned single Judge only corrected any clerical or arithmetical errors. The impugned portions of the judgment, noticed in para 11 supra, is nothing but exercising the jurisdiction of review, which is impermissible in law, as the learned Single Judge became functus : 18 : officio with the passing and signing of the judgment on 22.01.2013 and hence, had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders.
16. Reg. Point No.3: The Judgment passed on 22.01.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.2550/2012 by the learned Single Judge commences as follows:
"This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 06.01.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and JMFC, Hospet, acquitting the accused / respondent Nos.1 to 8 of the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 415, 420 r/w. Section 120B IPC."
After pronouncement of the judgment, an order which bears no date was passed by the learned Single Judge. The same being material is extracted herein below:
"After passing of the above order, it was noticed that the order sheet dated 12.12.2008 on the file of the learned Magistrate reads as follows:-
"In view of the Telephone message received from the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Bellary to dispose of the above case before 31.12.2008, this case is taken on this day's board.: 19 :
Issue Court notice to accused and victims to appear before Lok-Adalath on 12.12.2008."
Since it is strange that the Sessions Judge has telephonically instructed this case to be closed, the matter was posted for being spoken to on 24.1.2013. On 24.1.2013, this Court directed the appellant to be present on 30.1.2013. Today, the following proceedings are recorded:"
(underlining is ours)
17. In the case of PRAKASH SINGH TEJI Vs. NORTHERN INDIA GOODS TRANSPORT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER, (2009) 12 SCC 577, the High Court had made some remarks against the judicial officer and when questioned, the Apex Court while allowing the appeal and expunging the offending remarks has observed that, no adverse remarks can be made against any judicial officer without giving opportunity to explain the conduct.
18. In the case of AWANI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT : 20 : ALLAHAAD AND OTHERS, AIR 2013 SC 2189, the appellant who is a Member of the Uttara Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, questioned the strictures passed against him by the High Court. While deciding the case, Apex Court has held as follows:-
"12. It is made clear that we are not undermining the ultimate decision of the High Court on merits. However, we are constrained to observe that the higher courts every day come across orders of the lower courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges, hence it provides appeals and revisions. Inasmuch as the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under psychological pressure and they do not have the facilities which are available in the higher courts, we are of the view that the remarks/observations and strictures are to be avoided particularly if the officer has no occasion to put-forth his reasonings. Further, if the passage complained of is wholly irrelevant and unjustifiable and its retention on the records will cause serious harm to the persons to whom it refers and its expunction will not affect the reasons for the judgment or order, request for expunging those remarks are to be allowed. We, once again, reiterate that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against judicial officers and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law unless it is really for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof."
(underlining is ours) : 21 :
19. Typed portion of the matter appearing in the order-sheet dated 12.12.2008 of C.C. No.2503/2008, extracted in para 16 supra, does not even bear the signature of the Magistrate. Though the said note shows that a telephonic message was received from the Principal District and Sessions Court, Bellary, to dispose of the case before 31.12.2008, the learned Single Judge being of the opinion that "Since it is strange that the Sessions Judge has telephonically instructed this case to be closed", passed the impugned orders on 30.01.2013 and 31.01.2013, by being of the opinion that the Sessions Judge telephonically directed the learned Magistrate to close the case, which involves huge amounts of money. The observations are casual, without having regard to the possible consequences that may ensure from such observations. Observations coming from the : 22 : higher courts will have their own effect of influencing the course of events to follow.
20. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge, without even correctly examining the record of C.C. No.2503/2008, has drawn inference which does not have any foundation or support. On careful scrutiny of the entire records, we do not find any judicial impropriety on the part of the petitioner. No material is forthcoming in the record showing that the petitioner issued direction to the Magistrate to close the case. There being no judicial impropriety of whatsoever nature on the part of the petitioner, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the Registrar General, to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner is likely to have detrimental effect on the service career of the petitioner. We find that the observations and direction of the learned : 23 : Single Judge having no justification and having been issued in ignorance of the facts, could result in drastic consequences, far-reaching in nature and affect the service career of the petitioner.
For the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders, noticed supra, are set aside. Consequently, respondent No.10 is directed to delete the observations made on the basis of the impugned orders from the judicial official website.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE Ct:byg/-
RK/-