Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.32 seconds)Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
R.Rathinam vs State By Dsp, District Crime Branch on 8 February, 2000
In this behalf the ratio
laid down in the case of R. Rathinam v. State by
DSP [(2000) 2 SCC 391 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 958] needs to be
seen. In this case bail had been granted to certain persons. A
group of practising advocates presented petitions before the
Chief Justice of the High Court seeking initiation of suo
motu proceedings for cancellation of bail. The Chief Justice
placed the petitions before a Division Bench. The Division
Bench refused to exercise the suo motu powers on the
ground that the petition submitted by the advocates was not
maintainable. This Court held that the frame of sub-section
(2) of Section 439 indicates that it is a power conferred on
the courts mentioned therein. It was held that there was
nothing to indicate that the said power can be exercised only
if the State or investigating agency or a Public Prosecutor
moves a petition. It was held that the power so vested in the
High Court can be invoked either by the State or by any
aggrieved party. It was held that the said power could also
be exercised suo motu by the High Court. It was held that,
therefore, any member of the public, whether he belongs to
any particular profession or otherwise could move the High
Court to remind it of the need to exercise its power suo
motu. It was held that there was no barrier either in Section
439 of the Criminal Procedure Code or in any other law
which inhibits a person from moving the High Court to have
such powers exercised suo motu. It was held that if the High
Court considered that there was no need to cancel the bail
then it could dismiss the petition. It was held that it was
always open to the High Court to cancel the bail if it felt that
there were sufficient reasons for doing so."