JHARIA S/O MANIYA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 21-07-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

47s 
JHARIA S/O MANIY A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER 
• 
July 21, 1983 
[A. P. SEN, E. S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R . .B. MISRA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Art. 32-Whether a petition 1,nder Art. 32 is 111ain· 
tainable to assail the finality of the decision of the Court in ti special leave petition 
under Art. 136? 
' 
· 
The petitioner and his two associates weie convicted and sentenced under 
s. 302 read \Vith s. 34, l.P,C. On appeal, the Hi_gh Court-m11intained the 
conviction of the petitioner but acquitted his associates giving them the benefit 
of doubt. The petitioner applied to this Court for grant of special leave to 
appeal under Art. 136 but the same was dismissed. By this petiticn under 
Art. 32 the petitioner sought issuance of a writ of 1nandamus directing the 
State to forbear from giving effect to the judgment and· sentence passed by the 
triaf court as also the judgment of the High Court as well as the order passed 
by this Court dismissing the special leave petition on the ground· that his 
conviction was illegal and therefore his detention in jail was in violation of· 
Art. 21 read with Arts. 14 and 19. 
Dismissing the petition, 
HELD : The propriety" of asking for a declaration in these proceedings 
under Art. 32 that conviction of the petitioner by the High Colirt for an 
offence pun~shablc 1:1nder s. 302 read with s. 34 l.P.C. is illegal, particularly 
when this Court has declined to' grailt special leave under Art. 136 cannot 
be appreciated. Nor can the petitioner be heard to say that his detention 
in.jail an1ounts to deprivation of the fundamental 
~ight to life and liberty 
without following the procedure established by law in violation of Art. 21 read 
with Arts. 14. and 19. When a special leave petition is assigned to the learned 
judges sitting in a Bench, they constitute the Supreme Court and there is a 
finality to their judgment which cannot be upset in these proceedings under 
Art. 32. Obviously, the Supreme Court cannot issue a writ, direction or order 
to itself in respect of any judicial proceedings and the learned judges consti-
tuting the Berl'ch a!'e not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 
[470 D-FJ 
Shankar Ramclzandra Abbyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, [1970] 1 
. S.C.R. 322, referred to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1632 of 
1981. 
. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G· 
H 
416 
SUPRm.iE COlfaT REPORTS 
[!983] ~ S.C.R. 
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
S.K. Jain for the Petitioner. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SEN, J. This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution is clearly 
not maintainable and must be dismissed but in view of the growing 
trend of filing such frivolous applications, we deem it necessary to 
state the reasons therefor. 
It appears that the petitioner along with two others was 
arraigned befure the Sessions Judge of Al war in Sessions Trial No. 
110 of 1976 for having committed an alleged offence punishable 
under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, alternatively, under s. 302 
read with s. 34 of the Code. 
By his. finding and sentence dated 
April 21, 1977 the learned Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner and 
his two.associates for having committed the murder of the deceased 
Jharia in furtherance of their common intention· under s. 302 read 
with s. 34 and. sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for 
life, while recording their acquittal under s. 302. On appeal, a 
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) in 
Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1977 by judgment dated July 3, 1980 
maintained the conviction of the petitioner under s. 302 read with 
s. 34 but acquitted his two associates giving them the . benefit of 
doubt. 
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the 
petitioner applied to this Court for grant of special leave under Art. 
136 of the Constitution. The special leave petition was dismissed 
by this Court on February, 23, 198 l. An application for review 
was also dismissed on Novermber 19, 1981. Thereafter, the petitioner 
filed this petition under Art. 
32 assailing his conviction and sen-
tence. 
The petitioner seeks. the issuance of a writ of· mandamus 
directing the State of Rajasthan to forbear from giving effect to the 
judgment and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge as also 
the judgment of the High Court as well as the order passed by this 
Court dismissing the special leave petition. He further seeks a 
declara
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.