Supreme Court of India
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Selvi J. Jayalalitha on 25 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(1)ALD(CRI)125, 2000(7)SCALE167, (2000)9SCC444, 2000 AIR SCW 4641, 2000 (9) SCC 444, (2001) 1 EASTCRIC 89, (2000) 4 CURCRIR 150, (2000) 7 SCALE 167, (2002) 1 ALD(CRL) 125, (2000) 3 CHANDCRIC 155, (2000) 4 ALLCRILR 711, (2000) 4 CRIMES 142, (2000) 4 RECCRIR 571, (2001) SC CR R 553, (2000) 7 SUPREME 70(2), (2000) 41 ALLCRIC 994, 2001 SCC (CRI) 415
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Ruma Pal
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. When we heard Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu on 18-4-2000, he frankly conceded that the offence Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be charged against the respondent on the facts of this case. However, learned senior counsel addressed detailed arguments regarding sustainability of the other offences included in the charge framed against the respondent, and seriously attacked the reasons of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the impugned order. Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel who argued for the respondent defended the order. We are told that the impugned order was passed by the High Court when the trial court has reached almost the final stage of prosecution evidence, as only a few more witnesses remained to be examined. When we expressed to Shri Sushil Kumar that it was not proper for the Single Judge to have expressed final opinion on the merits of the legal interpretations regarding the points raised, when the trial has reached such a stage, learned senior counsel wanted time to get instructions as to whether the petitions filed by the respondent to discharge the accused can be withdrawn without prejudice to her rights to raise all the contentions in the trial court afresh. We granted time till today.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent now seeks permission to withdraw the criminal revision petitions filed in the High Court (Crl. Revision Complaint Nos. 406/1998, 606/1999 and 930/1999) without prejudice to her rights to raise all the contentions in the trial court afresh. In fact an application has been filed on behalf of the respondent seeking permission to withdraw, unconditionally, Criminal Revision Petitions numbered as above filed before the High Court of Madras. That application will be on record. We order that the above revision petitions filed in the High Court would stand dismissed as withdrawn. However, we, permit the respondent to raise all contentions which she thinks necessary before the trial court at the final stage. We, therefore, declare that the impugned common judgment dated 13-1-2000 passed by the High Court of Madras will stand erased. If the trial court is to decide any questions which have been dealt with in the impugned judgment the same shall be decided as though the High Court has not pronounced any opinion on such questions thus far. The trial court will now proceed to conclude the trial and dispose it of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
4. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.