Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Since neither revisional powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor inherent powers, recognized by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can be invoked to challenge an interlocutory order such as order framing charge or directing framing of charge in a corruption case, invoking under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is the only remedy available to an accused against whom charge is framed or is ordered to be framed, besides extraordinary jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. If it is held that even constitutional remedy under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against such an order, the accused will become almost remediless even if the order passed by the Special Judge in a given case is totally without jurisdiction and causes grave miscarriage of justice or results in gross abuse of the process of law, and therefore, needs interference and correction by a superior Court. There may be a genuine apprehension that if the petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution are entertained against an interlocutory order such as an order framing charge or directing framing of charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitions challenging such an order may be labelled as writ petitions though the facts and circumstances of the case may not exercise of writ jurisdiction of the Court conferred by Article 226/227 of the Constitution. But, then the remedy does not lie in denying access to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court which is a Fundamental Right of every citizen and thereby leave an accused almost without remedy even in a case that would justify invocation of the constitutional powers conferred upon this Court. The guidelines for exercise of jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court by Article 226/227 of the Constitution have been well laid down in a number of authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and needs to be strictly adhered to whenever such a jurisdiction is invoked. As reminded by the Apex Court, from time to time, these powers needs to be exercised cautiously, sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, their objective being to keep the subordinate Courts under check and within the legal authority conferred upon them. The Courts cannot use revisional powers in the cloak of the writ powers conferred upon them. Appreciation of evidence and examination of its probative value is not permissible nor can the Courts exercising writ jurisdiction. Interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is warranted only in a case where gross injustice or failure of justice would be occasioned by refusing to exercise such powers. Therefore, the solution lies in self-restriction and not in denial of the constitutional remedy available to an accused.

53. As noted earlier, the petitions before this Court in the case of Dharambir Khattar (supra) were Revisions Petitions and not petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, though it was urged before the Court that the power of the Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution remains untrammeled even if the revisional powers could not be exercised in view of the embargo placed by Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act. This contention was not accepted observing that the same does not survive after the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Navjot Sandhu(supra). The observations of this Court, to the extent that the contention regarding constitutional powers of the Court remaining untrammeled, does not survive in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Navjot Sandhu (supra), are therefore obiter and do not constitute the law laid down by this Court in that case. The matter therefore does not need to be referred to a larger Bench.

54. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998 (5) SCC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that nomenclature under which petitions filed is not quite relevant and does not debar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction with otherwise possesses unless there is a special procedure prescribed which procedure is mandatory.

55. In Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society vs. Swaraj Developers and Ors. 2003 (6) SCC 659, while interpreting Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the impugned order is interim in nature or does not finally decide the lis, the revision will not be maintainable. It was contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if revisions are no maintainable, there should not be a bar on challenge being made under Article 227 of the Constitution and an opportunity may be taken to the appellants to avail that remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if any remedy is available to a party under any statute, no liberty is necessary to be granted for availing the same. In any case, no request has been made to this Court by any of the revisionists to treat the revision petition filed by them as a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution or seeking leave to file a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. In the absence of such a prayer, the Revision Petitions cannot be considered as petitions invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

56. I therefore hold that (i) Revision Petition is not maintainable against an order framing charge or directing framing of charge in a case attracting the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) Inherent Powers of the High Court cannot be invoked to challenge an order of the above-referred nature and; (iii) Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order of the above-referred nature.

57. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, Revision Petitions 293/2006, 294/2006, 352/2006 and 580/2006 are hereby dismissed. Since the provisions of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution have been invoked in Writ Petition 1419/2009, this petition be listed for hearing on merits on 14 th January, 2010.