Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32. Mr. Jethmalani fairly submitted that the practice of passing orders of anticipatory bail operative for a few days and directing the accused to surrender before the Magistrate and apply for regular bail are contrary to the law laid down in Sibbia's case (supra). The decisions of this Court in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 1 SCC 667, K. L. Verma v. State and Another (1998) 9 SCC 348, Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal (2005) 4 SCC 303 and Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar and Another (2005) 1 SCC 608 are in conflict with the above decision of the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra). He submitted that all these orders which are contrary to the clear legislative intention of law laid down in Sibbia's case (supra) are per incuriam. He also submitted that in case the conflict between the two views is irreconcilable, the court is bound to follow the judgment of the Constitution Bench over the subsequent decisions of Benches of lesser strength.

35. He also placed reliance on Union of India and Others v. K. S. Subramanian (1976) 3 SCC 677 and State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi (1976) 4 SCC 52 and submitted that in case of conflict, the High Court has to prefer the decision of a larger Bench to that of a smaller Bench.

36. Mr. Jethmalani submitted that not only the decision in Sibbia's case (supra) must be followed on account of the larger strength of the Bench that delivered it but the subsequent decisions must be held to be per incuriam and hence not binding since they have not taken into account the ratio of the judgment of the Constitution Bench.

138. The judgments and orders mentioned in paras 135 and 136 are clearly contrary to the law declared by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sibbia's case (supra). These judgments and orders are also contrary to the legislative intention. The Court would not be justified in re-writing section 438 Cr.P.C.

139. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned counsel for the parties. In Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Company Limited (1994) All ER 293 the House of Lords observed that `Incuria' literally means `carelessness'. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The `quotable in law' is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, `in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority. The same has been accepted, approved and adopted by this court while interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution which embodies the doctrine of precedents as a matter of law.

"......... In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) Vol. 26: Judgment and Orders: Judicial Decisions as Authorities (pp. 297-98, para 578) per incuriam has been elucidated as under:

"A decision is given per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before it, in which case it must decide which case to follow (Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., 1944 KB 718 at 729 : (1944) 2 All ER 293 at 300.