LexDHARMESH @ NANU NITINBHAI SHAH versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B '''".; -- DHARMESH @ NANU NITINBHAI SHAH v. STATE OF GUJARAT ; AUGUST I, 2002 - . . . . I - [D.P. MOHAPATRA AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] ' -. . ~ '' Constitution of India, 1950...-:.Article 136-Special Leave Jurisdiction-- Exercise of-Non- production of sanction order before the Magistrate at the C siage of committal of the case-Accused raising objectio'I of non-production of sanction for thefirst time in revision application and High Court dismissing the application-Interference by Supreme Court-Held, not justified since that would result in further delay in holding the trial, more so when the petitioner inexplicably failed to raise the objection at the earliest-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 196 and 193. ·D Charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for offences under sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 123 and 212 of the IPC and under sections 25(1)(A) and (B), 27 of the Arms Act before the Magistrate. Magistrate 'committed the cafe to Sessions Court Before charges were framed sanction order was produced before Sessions Court Petitioner filed an application E for discharge on the ground that there was no prima facie evidence to frame charge against him. The application was rejected. Petitioner then filed revision application under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. and on the additional ground that the entire proceedings including committal of the case to the Sessions Court were vitiated by illegality for want of sanction F under section 196 Cr.P.C. High Court dismissed the application. Hence the present Special Leave Petition. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1. The petitioner did not choose to raise the objection G regarding non- production of sanction order either before the Magistrate or even before the Sessions Court. It was raised for the first time in the revision application filed in the High Court. This contention could have been considered by this Court, if substantial relief could be granted to the petitioner or if injustice could he averted. At best, the matter could be sent hack to the Magistrate to go through a fresh process of committal H 406 -- DHARMESH@ NANU NITINBHAI v. ST ATE 407 after receiving the sanction order filed by the prosecution. In any case, A · the matter would have to come up to the Sessions Court again. The compliance with the formality would only result in further delay in holding the trial, without any corresponding advan~age to the petitioner. Such a situation should not be permitted to happen while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 136, more so when the petitioner inexplicably B failed to raise the objection at the earliest. Evidently, he chose to raise the objections in piecemeal without apparent justification. Hence it is not a fit case to interfere under Article 136. (411-A-D] 2. The que.tion whether the sanction order under Section 196 is required to be produced before the Magistrate who takes cognizance in C the first instance or before the Sessions Court which has exclusive jurisdiction to try the offence has been left open by the Court, while observing that the Sessions Court also takes cognizance of the offence irrespective of the Magistrate taking cognizance thereof for the purpose of committal of the case. [410-E, F] RR. Chari v. State of UP .. [1951] SCR 312; Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerjee. AIR 1950 Cal. 437; Rajender Kumar Jain v. State, [1983] I SCC 435; State of UP. v. Lakshmi Brahman, [1983] 2 SCC 372 and Gangula Ashok v. State of Andhr.a Pradesh, ]2000] 2 SCC 504, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 662 of 2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.2001 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl.R.A. No. 542 of 2000. R.K. Mahesshwari, Waqar Ahmed, H.P. Sharma, Rishi Maheshwari, Ms. Shally Bhasin Maheshwari and Ms. Ritu Rastogi for the Petitioner. S.K. Dholakia, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Anu Sawhney and Ms. Aruna Gupta, for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. VENKA TARAMA REDDI, J. This Special Leave Petition arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat, rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner herein against D E F G the order of Addi. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. A charge-sheet for offences H 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. A punishable under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.