ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. & ANR.V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 1045 · Decided: 28-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 22 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1045
ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. & ANR.
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013)
MARCH 28, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, R. F. NARIMAN AND
NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.19(3)(c) – Interpretation
of – Order framing charge under the 1988 Act – Challenge to –
Jurisdiction of High Court and power to grant stay in such
matters – Whether an order on charge framed under the provisions
of 1988 Act, is an interlocutory order, and thereby in view of
s.19(3)(c), exercise of revisional power of High Court u/
s.397(2),CrPC is barred – Also whether s.19(3)(c) which bars
revision would also bar exercise of inherent power of High Court
u/s.482, CrPC or u/Arts.226 and 227– Held: Per A. K. Goel, J. (for
himself and Navin Sinha, J.) Order framing charge is not purely an
interlocutory order nor a final order– Jurisdiction of High Court is
not barred either u/s.397 or u/s.482, CrPC or u/Art.227 of the
Constitution – However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised
consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal
of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered – Thus,
challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of
rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to
re-appreciate the matter – Even where such challenge is entertained
and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis
so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period – Though
no mandatory time limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed
two-three months normally – Mandate of speedy justice applies to
the PC Act cases as well – Per R. F. Nariman, J. (Concurring)
Inherent power of a Court set up by the Constitution is a power that
inheres in such Court because it is a superior court of record, and
not because it is conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure –
Section 19(3)(c) cannot be read as a ban on the maintainability of
a petition filed before High Court u/s.482,CrPC – Constitution of
India – Arts. 21, 215, 226 and 227 – Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – ss.397(2), 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 –
[2018] 2 S.C.R. 1045
1045
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 – Anti-Corruption Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1964 – Stay.
Constitution of India: Art. 21 – Mandate of speedy justice in
criminal cases – Delay in trials of corruption cases, due to grant of
stay  – Directions issued – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 –
Stay. [Per A.K. Goel, J. (for himself and Navin Sinha, J.)]
Stay: Duration of, in civil and criminal cases – Held: Where
stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the
same will come to an end on expiry of six months – Administration
of justice. [Per A.K. Goel, J. (for himself and Navin Sinha, J.)]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.19(3)(c) r/w ss.4(4)
and 22 – Cases under the Act – Disposal of – Held: S.19(3)(c) read
with ss.4(4) and 22, make it clear that cases under the Act have to
be decided with utmost despatch and without any glitches on the
way in the form of interlocutory stay orders. (Per R.F. Nariman, J.)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Inherent Powers
of Court – Nature of – Discussed. (Per R.F. Nariman, J.)
Interpretation of Statutes: In case of ambiguity – Held: If there
is an ambiguity, and two views are possible, the view which most
accords with the object of the Act, and which makes the Act
workable, must necessarily be the controlling view. (Per R.F.
Nariman, J.)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.19(3)(c) – “On any
other ground” – Plea of appellants that the expression “on any
other ground” is referable only to grounds which relate to sanction
and not to all proceedings under the Act – Respondents contended
that these are grounds referable to the proceedings under the Act
and are not relatable to sanction only – Held: “On any other
ground”, refers to and relates to all grounds that are available in
proceedings under the Act other than grounds which relate to
sanction granted by the authority. (Per R.F. Nariman, J.)
Answering the referred questions, the Court
HELD: Per A.K. Goel, J. (for himself and Navin Sinha, J.)
1.1 Order framing charge may not be held to be purely an
interlocutory order and can in a given situation be interfered with
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1047
under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the
Constitution which is a constitutional pro

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