LexASHISH CHADHA versus SMT. ASHA KUMARI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 417 ASHISH CHADHA v. SMT. ASHA KUMARI & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 893 of 2005) DECEMBER 2, 2011 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: Article 136 - Locus to file appeal and jurisdiction of Supreme Court - Complaint alleging illegal transfer of Government land - Order of Special Judge framing charges, set aside by High and the case transferred to a different court A B c - Original complainant died - Special leave petition filed by 0 an Ex-Municipal Councillor with a petition for leave to file the SLP - Held: Though in express terms, Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on a party as such, but it confers discretionary power on Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases - In the instant case, the allegations made against E respondent no. 1 are serious - There is a prima facie case against /Jer - By t/Je impugned order not only the charge framed against /Jer but also against all the accused has been quashed - Though the matter has been remanded, the High Court by observing that there is no prima facie case against F respondent no. 1, has frustrated the purpose of remand order - Besides, without there being any material on record, the High Court has transferred the case to a different court - The High Court's judgment is tainted with legal infirmities and has resulted in miscarriage of justice - Therefore, interference by Supreme Court is necessary in larger public interest - Code G of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 401. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 417 H 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A s. 401 - High Court's power of revision - Scope of - Charge framed by Special Court set aside by High Court and the case remanded and transferred to a different court - Held: The High Court has completely misdirected itself in reversing the trial court's order framing the charge - .High Court in its B revisional jurisdiction appraised the evidence which it could not have done - Ignoring the settled position in law, the High Court discussed the details of the facts and drew inferences - The High Court should have left the final adjudication to the trial court by not quashing the charge - Besides, the High c Court unnecessarily observed that the charge is vague - Further, the High Court transferred the case to a different court, without there being any material on record for such an order - It overstepped its revisional jurisdiction - Order of the High Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice and, as such, 0 is set aside - The order framing charge by Special Judge is confirmed and he is directed to proceed further in accordance with law - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. s. 303 - Right of person against whom proceedings are instituted to be defended - Criminal proceedings against E husband and wife - Both represented by one and the same Counsel - Proceedings for framing charges conducted on 15 dates - On the date of framing the charge, the same counsel, who had argued the case on behalf of the wife, stated that he had no instructions to represent her - The wife also filed an F application that she wanted to be defended by a counsel of her choice - Application rejected by trial court - Further application for transfer of the case also rejected - In revision, the High Court observing that the applicant had been denied opportunity to be defended by counsel of her choice, G remanded the case, but to a different court - Held: The attempt of the applicant to change the counsel was a dilatory tactic - There is no violation of s. 303 of the Code or Article 22 (1) of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950-Article 22 (1). H ASHISH CHADHA v. ASHA KUMARI & ANR. 419 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE: Transfer of cases by High Court - HELD: Transfers ordered merely on the say-so of a party have a demoralizing effect on the trial courts - Unless a very strong case, based A on concrete material is made out, such transfers should not 8 be ordered - Transfer petition. A complaint was filed against respondent no.1, who had been the Member of the State Legislative Assembly, her husband (since deceased) and others, stating that they conspired to get wrong entries made in the revenue C records and to secure illegal orders regarding conferment of proprietary rights in favour of the servants of the husband of respondent no.1, who finally managed to become owne
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.