K. KARUNAKARAN versus T. V. EACHARA WARRIER

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 209 · Decided: 16-11-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

K. KARUNAKARAN 
V. 
T. V. EACHARA WARRIER 
November 16, 1977 
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND V. D .TULZAPURKAR, JJ.J 
209 
Con.'ilitution of India-Article 136-Exercise of power to prevent gross 
injustice-Perverse or palpably erroneous orders-Criminal Procedure Code 
1973 Sec. 340(1), 341-Criminal Procedure 
Code 1898 
Sec. 476B-Indian 
Penal Code-Sec. 193-Sanction for pro~·ecution for periury granted by High 
<.'ourt-Jflhcn this Court would interfere. 
A 
B 
The respondent's son was a student in the Regional Engineering 
College. 
Calicut, and was a resident of the College Hostel. The respondent received 
C 
a 
regi~tered letter from the Principal of the College informing him that his 
~on Rajan was arrested and taken into- police custody. 
This v1as during the 
time when the proclamation of emergency was in force, since June, 
1975. 
The respondent had to make nu1nerous efforts and entreaties 
in 
appropriate 
quarters to anyhow ascertain the \Vhereabouts of his son. He saw the appel
4 
lant v,iho \Vas then the Home Minister of Kerala. He also met the 
then 
c·hief 11inisler of Kerala and wrote a representation te the Home Minister 
of the GoYernment of India \vith copies to all members of Parliament from 
D 
Kerala, A .reminder was also sent. ·The respondent, ho\vever, did not receive 
any reply from any source. Thereafter, the respondent filed a· Habeas Corpus 
Petition in the High Court in.vihich the present appellant, inter alia was .ioined 
as the resp@ndent. 
The High Court issued a writ of Habeas Corpus to the 
respondents in that petition directing them to produce Shri Rajan S/o 
the 
respondent- in the Court. The court also ordered that if for any reason the 
respondent thought that they would not be able to produce the said Rajan 
they should file a Men10 submitting the information about the steps taken to 
trace Rajan and that they failed to locate him. In the course of the proceed-
E 
ings in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the appellant filed two affidavit<>. 
In the 
first affidavit the appellant denied having told the respondent that his son 
was in police custody and he further stated that he had no knowledge that the 
said Rajan \Vas in police custody at any time. 
In the subsequent affidavit 
he deposed that after Rajan was taken into police custody he was belaboured 
by the Police and there is every reason to believe that he met with hi'i death 
while in police custody. 
The respondent filed an application under Sec. 340(1) of the 
Criminal 
Procedure Code before the High Court for taking action against the appellant 
and others for perjury. The High Court hearing the application came to the 
conclusion that a prima facie case was made out under section 193 of the 
flndiau Penal Code and· that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lay 
,a complaint against the appellant before the appropriate Court. 
Dismissing the appeal by Special Leave held :-
!. It is well settled that this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution 
would con1e to the akl of a party when any gross injustice is manifestly com~ 
mitted by ri C'A>urt \Vhose order gives rise to the cause for grievance before 
the Court. If two views arc possible, it would not be expedient, 
in 
the 
interest of justice to intetfere with the order of the High Court The order 
of the fligh Court can be quashed only if it is manifestly perverse or so 
grossly erroneous or so palpably unjust that this Court must interfere in the 
interest o~ justice and fairply. [217 C·D, F] 
, 
2. The High Court has taken good care not to express on the 
merits of 
certain aspects. The Court found that there was no justification to interfere 
·with the '0rdc1 of the High Court, [217 G] 
F 
G 
H 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1973] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
3. UnJer Section 476B of the old Criminal Procedure Code there was 
B 
a right of appeal against the order of the High C...ourt to this Cc•urt. 
There 
,/....,, 
is, however, a distinct departure from that position under section 341 of the 
ne\v Criminal Procedure COOe. 
It is, therefore, a new restriction in the way 
of the appellant when he approaches this Court under .Article 136 
of 
the 
Constitulion. [216 B-C] 
4. 1'he Court made it clear that the reasons contained in the High Court 
or ·those nientioned by this Court should not weigh with the 
Crintinal Court 
in (:Oming to its independent conclusion whether th1~ offence under section 193 
of the Indiru1 Penal Code has been fully established against 
the 
appellant 
bcyong re

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