A.R. ANTULAY versus R.S. NAYAK & ANR.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 29-04-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 34 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
ii 
• 
A.R. ANTULA Y 
v. 
R.S. NAYAK & ANR. 
APRIL 29, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, RANGANATH MISRA, 
G.L. OZA, B.C .. RAY, S. NATARAJAN, 
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 13, 14, 21, 32 Prosecution of 
appellant for offences under sections 161 and 165 I. P. C.-Trial under 
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 to be h.eld by Special Judge only-
C 
Supreme Court in its judgment directing trial to be held by High Court 
Judge-Validity of Supreme Court Judgment-Whether infringement of 
fundamental right of accused involved-Whether procedure established 
by law violated-Power to create or enlarge jurisdiction-Legislative in 
character. 
Articles 32, 134, 136, 137, 139, 141 and 142-Powers of review-. 
Nature and scope of-Whether Supreme Court can review its directions 
if they result in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen-Whether 
Supreme Court can issue writ of certiorari to quash judicial order passed 
by another Bench-Whether a larger Bench can overrule or recall a 
decision of a smaller Bench. 
Articles 140, 141, 142 and 145: Jurisdiction-Want of-Can be 
established only by a superior court-No decision can be impeached 
collatterally by any inferior court-Superior court can. always correct 
errors by petition or ex debito justitiae-Judgments per incuriam-
Effect of. 
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952: Sections 6 & 7-
0ffences under Act to be tried only by Special Judge-Order of 
Supreme Court transferring and direding trial by High Court Judge-
Whether legally authorised-Non-substante clause ins. 7( 1)-Effect of. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sections 374, 406 & 407-
Transfer of case-Power of transfer postulates that Court to which 
transfer or withdrawal is sought is competent to exercise jurisdiction 
over case-Intra state transfer is within jurisdiction of the appropriate 
D 
E 
F 
G 
High Court. 
1-1 
1 
A 
B 
c 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
Practice and Procedure: Judgment of Supreme Coun-Direc-
tions issued in proceedings inter partes-Found bad in law or violative 
of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and principles of natural 
justice-Whether immune from correction even though they cause pre-
judice and do injury. 
Criminal Trial-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sec. 223-
Whether an accused can demand as of a right trial with co-accused. 
Interpretation of statutes-Words to be given normal meaning 
with reference to context-Golden rule of interpretation-When to be 
resorted to. 
Legal Maxims: Actus curiae neminem gravabid-Coram non-
judice-Per curiam-Ex debito justitiae-Nunc-Pro-tunc-Applicabi-
lity of. 
The appellant was the Chief Minister of Maharashtra between 
D ·June 9, 1980 and January 12, 1982, when he resigned that office in 
deference to the judgment of High Court in a writ petition tiled against 
him, but continued as an MLA. 
On August 9, 1982, respondent No. t, a member of a political 
party tiled a complaint before a Special Judge against the appellant and 
E 
others for offences under ss. 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code and 
s. 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 and also under ss. 384 
and 420 read with ss. 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 
The Special Judge issued process to the appellant. Later, the Spe-
cial Judge over-ruled the objection of the appellant to take cognizance 
• 
F 
of the offences on a private complaint, and to issue process, in the 
absence of notification under s. 7(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment 
Act, 1952, specifying as to which of the three special Judges of the area 
should try such cases. 
Against this, the appellant filed a revision application in the High 
G 
Court, which dismissed it subsequently. The appellant's Special Leave 
Petition against this was dismissed by the Supreme Court which held 
that the complaint tiled by respondent No. 1 was clearly maintainable 
and cognizance was properly taken of it. 
During the pendency of the revision application in the High 
H Court, the State Government notified the SpeCial Judge to try the off-
' ' . ;,,;.\ 
f;i 
A.R. ANTULAY ,._ R.S. NAYAK 
3 
:Ci, 
A 
ences specified nnder s. 6(1) of the Act and appointed another Special 
Jndge, who discharged the appellant, holding that a member of the 
Legislative Assembly was a public servant and there was no valid sane-
tion for prosecuting the appellant. Against this order of discharge, 
respondent No. 1 flied a Criminal Revision Application in the High 
Court, which was subseque

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.