JAGIR SINGH versus RANBIR SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 09-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

282 
A 
JAGIR SINGH 
v. 
RANBIR SINGH & ANR. 
November 9, 1978 
B 
[JASWANT SINGH AND 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY, JJ] 
Constitution of India, Art. 227(5), power of 
judicial 
superintendence, 
scope. 
J 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1914 s. 397, introduction of changes for avoid-
ance of delay-S. 484 (2) (b), ''Corresponding provision" scope, application 
C 
to jud1'cial orders made under Cr.P.C., 1898-S. 125, whether corresponds to 
1. 488 "1'.P.C., 1898. 
Ranbir Singh is Jagir Singh's son from his separated first wife. In 1971 
he and his mother applied for maintenance under s. 488 of Cr.P.C., 
1898. 
Although Ranbir Singh was a major, maintenance was awarded to him on the 
ground that he was a student unable to maintain himself. 
In April 1974, the 
D 
new Cr.P.C. came into force, and under s. 127 Jagir Singh applied for cancel-
lation of the maintenance order, on the ground that the major son was not 
prevented from maintaining himself through any infirmity or abnormality, and 
was not entitled to maintenance under the new code. The respondent contended 
that the maintenance order had been validly passed under the old Code, and 
continued to remain in force notwithstanding the enactment of, the new Code 
but the Magistrate cancelled the maintenance order, Ranbir Singh's Revision 
E 
Application was dismissed by the Sessions Court, on the ground that the order 
made under s. 488 of the Cr.P.C., 1898 would not survive under s. 484(2) 
of the Cr.P.C. 1974 due to the absence of a corresponding provision under lhe 
new Code, enabling his maintenance. He then applied to the High Court for 
a Revision. Tue High Court allowed the Revision holding that s. 125 of the 
Cr.P.C., 1974 did correspond with s. 488 of the Cr.P.C. 1898. 
F 
The appellant contended that Ranbir Singh's Revision application to the 
High Court was barred by s. 397(3), Cr.P.C., 1974, and was incompetent, 
and that his right to invoke revisional jurisdiction of a superior court became 
exhausted when be moved the Sessions Court in Revision. 
He further con, 
tended that the maintenance order was not saved either by s. 484(2), Cr.P.C. 
1974 or sections 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act. 
G 
The respondent submitted that his llevision application before the 
High 
H 
Court could be treated and maintained, as, one directed against the Sessions 
Judge's order rejecting his Revision application, or it could be treated as one 
under Art. 227 of the Constitution. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: (1) The power under Art. 227 is discretionary. The power of 
judicial superintendenee under it could only be exercised sparingly to keep 
1ubordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority, and 
not to correct mere errors. Where the statute banned the exercise of revisional 
• 
•
• 
JAGIR SINGH V. RANB!R SINGH 
283 
powers by the High Court, it would require very exceptional circumst8ol!ces to 
A 
warrant interference under Art. 227, since the power of superintendence was 
not meant to circumvent statutory law. By the 42nd Amendment Act, clause 
(5) was added in Art. 227, which is a verbatim reproduction oJ' s. 224(2) of 
the Governn1cnt of India Act, 1935, conferring po\vers of aJministrative super· 
intendcnce only, and not the power of judicial superi1n.endence. '[287F·I-I, 288A1 
(2) In the Cr.P.C. of 1974 the District Magistrate is divested of his revisio~ 
jurisdiction over inferior criminal courts. In addition, there are two important 
changes apparently designed to avoid delay and to secure prompt justice. The 
first change is introduced by s. 397(2) which bars the exercise of revisional 
power in relation to any iilterlocutory order passed in any appeal, 
enquiry, 
trial or other proceeding. The second change is introduced by s. 
397(3) 
under which any person aggrieved by an order of an inferior criminal court, 
is given the option to approach either the Sessions Judge or the High Court, 
and once he exercises the option, he is precluded frcm invoking the revisional 
jurisdiction of the other authority. The object is, to prevent a multiple exer-
cise of revisional powers and to secure early fintality to orders. [286C-F] 
For v. Bishop of Ches/or, [1824] 2 B&C 635; Maxwell (!Ith Edn. page 109); 
applied. 
(3) Whenever an Act is repealed and re-enacted, there are bound to be 
changes and modifications. To say that a modified provision dealing with the 
same subject matter in substantially the same manner a03 the original provision 
is not a "cor

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