LexC.B.I. AND ORS. versus KESHUB MAHINDRA ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2Q11] 6 S.C.R. 384 A CJ3.I. AND ORS. v. KESHUB MAHINDRA ETC. ETC. Curative Petition (Crl.) Nos.39-42 of 2010 IN B (Criminal Appeal Nos.1672-75 of 1996) MAY 11, 2011 [S.H. KAPADIA, CJI, ALTAMAS KABIR, R.V. RAVEENDRAN, B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND AFTAB C ALAM, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.323 216, 386, 397, 399, 401 - Jurisdiction of court to exercise power conferred under the Code - Scope of - The Supreme Court passed D judgment on 13. 9. 1996 quashing the charges framed by the Sessions Court and directing that on the material led by prosecution the charge uls.304A, /PC be made out against accused - Curative petitions filed after 14 years of 1996 judgment on the ground that the said judgment barred the E Magistrate from exercising his judicial power u/s. 323 - Held: No decision by any court can be read in a manner as to nullify the express provisions of an Act or the Code - In the 1996 judgment, the Supreme Court clearly held that its findings were based on materials gathered in investigation and brought F before the court till that stage - At every place in the judgment, the Court recorded the finding in regard to the appropriate charges against the accused, it qualified the finding or observation by saying "on the materials produced by the prosecution for framing charge" - The 1996 judgment G was rendered at the stage of ss.20912281240 and the judgment cannot be read to say that it denuded a competent court of the powers under ss.323, 216, 386, 397, 399, 401 etc. - The 1996 judgment cannot be said to be a fetter against the proper exercise of powers by a court of competent jurisdiction under H 384 C.B.L AND ORS. v. KESHUB MAHINDRA ETC. ETC. 385 the relevant provisions of the Code - No grounds falling within A the parameters of *Rupa Ashok Hurra case made out in the instant curative petitions - Moreover, no satisfactory explanation is given to file such curative petitions after about 14 years from 1996 judgment of the Supreme Court - Curative petitions dismissed - Curative Petition. B *Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388 - relied on. Keshub Mahindra V. State of M.P. (1996) 6 sec 129 - referred _to. C Case Law Reference: (1996) 6 sec 129 (2002) 4 sec 388 referred to Paras 1, 3 relied on Para 4 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Curative Petition (Criminal) Nos. 39-42 of 2010: In Criminal Appeal Nos. 1672-1675 of 1996. D E Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG, Indira Jaising, H.P. Rayal and Vivek K. Tankha, ASG, H.N. Salve, Amit Desai, Sidharth Luthra, C.U. Singh and Ram Jethmalani, Devadatt Kamat, Anoopam N. Prasad, Naila Jung, Nishanth Patil, Rohit Sharma, Sreekant F N. Terdal, T.A Khan, Ar\lind Kumar Sharma, Pianka Telang, Nitin Lonkar Parmeshwar! Samridhi Sinha, Chinmoy Sharma, Anriudh Sharma, Ananda Mukherjee, Harsh N. Parekh, Avi Singh, Karuna Nandy, Ap'arna Bhat, Gopal Krishna Shenoy, Mahesh Agarwal, Neeha Nagpal, E.C. Agrawala, Radhika G Gautam, Rishi Agrawala, O.P. Khaitan, Ramesh Singh, AT. Patra, Ajay Gupta, Aradhana Patra (for O.P. Khaiatan & Co.), Ramesh Singh, AT. Patra, S.U.K. Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Vaibhav Gaggar, Anurag Ahluwalia, Krishna Kumar Singh, Karan Kanwal, Mohinder Charak, Vinita Sasidharan, Praseena H 386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R. A E. Joseph (for Lawyers' Knit & Co.), Pratul Shandilya, Rishabh Sancheti, Sameer Sodhi Vaibhav Shrivastav, Kumanan D., Varun Chopra, C.D. Singh, Sanjay Parikh, Aagney Sail, Mamta Saxena, Anitha Shenoy, Prashanto Chandra Sen, Yug Mohit Choudhary, Lata Krishnamurty, Nitin Dahiya, Pallav Kumar, B Rishi Maheshwari and P.S. Sudheer for the appearing parties. The Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER c S.H. KAPADIA, CJI. 1. These curative petitions are filed by Central Bureau of Investigation for recalling the judgment and order dated 13.9.1996 of this Court in Keshub Mahindra vs. State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1672-1675 of 1996 decided on 13.9.1996 reported in 1996 (6) sec 129), on the D following premises : E F G H (i) When this Court, by the said judgment dated 13.9.1996 quashed the charges framed against accused Nos. 2 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 under Sections 304 (Part II), 324, 326 and 429 IPC and directed the trial court to frame charges under Section 304A IPC, this Court had before it adequate material to make out prima facie, an offence chargeaole under Section 304 (Part II) IPC. Therefore, this Court committed a serious error in ign
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.