Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.34 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Durga Shankar Mehta vs Thakur Raghuraj Singh And Others on 19 May, 1954
It is a plenary
power, ‘exercisable outside the purview
of ordinary law’ to meet the pressing
demands of justice (see Durga Shankar
Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh). Article
136 of the Constitution neither confers
on anyone the right to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court nor inhibits
anyone from invoking the Court’s
jurisdiction. The power is vested in
this Court but the right to invoke the
Court’s jurisdiction is vested in no
one.
Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978
Where a judgment of acquittal by the
High Court has led to a serious
miscarriage of justice, this Court
cannot refrain from doing its duty and
abstain from interfering on the ground
that a private party and not the State
has invoked the Court’s jurisdiction. We
do not have slightest doubt that we can
entertain appeals against judgments of
acquittal by the High Court at the
instance of interested private parties
also. The circumstance that the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (in short ‘the
Code’) does not provide for an appeal to
the High Court against an order of
acquittal by a subordinate court, at the
instance of a private party, has no
relevance to the question of the power
of this Court under Article 136. We may
mention that in Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh
this Court interfered with a judgment of
acquittal by the High Court at the
instance of a private party. An
apprehension was expressed that if
Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.)No.2866 of 2011 22
appeals against judgments of acquittal
at the instance of private parties are
permitted there may be a flood of
appeals. We do not share the
apprehension. Appeals under Article 136
of the Constitution are entertained by
special leave granted by this Court,
whether it is the State or a private
party that invokes the jurisdiction of
this Court, and special leave is not
granted as a matter of course but only
for good and sufficient reasons, on
well-established practice of this
Court.””
(emphasis supplied by this Court)
Ramakant Rai vs Madan Rai And Ors on 26 September, 2003
25. After considering the case law relied upon by
the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the
respondents, in the light of the material placed on
record, we are of the view that the appellants have
locus standi to maintain this appeal. From the
material placed on record, it is clear that the
appellants have precise connection with the matter at
hand and thus, have locus to maintain this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellants has rightly
placed reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment
of this Court, namely, P.S.R Sadhanantham (supra) and
other decisions of this Court in Ramakant Rai, Esher
Singh, Ramakant Verma (supra). Further, it is
pertinent here to observe that it may not be possible
to strictly enumerate as to who all will have locus
Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.)No.2866 of 2011 23
to maintain an appeal before this Court invoking
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, it depends
upon the factual matrix of each case, as each case
has its unique set of facts. It is clear from the
aforementioned case law that the Court should be
liberal in allowing any third party, having bonafide
connection with the matter, to maintain the appeal
with a view to advance substantial justice. However,
this power of allowing a third party to maintain an
appeal should be exercised with due care and caution.
Persons, unconnected with the matter under
consideration or having personal grievance against
the accused should be checked. A strict vigilance is
required to be maintained in this regard.
Answer to Point No.2