LexKESHAV PRASAD SHARMA versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 1 S.C.R. 838
A
KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA
V.
)..._ ...
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.
(SLP (CRL.) NOS. 1646-1647 OF 2009)
B
JANUARY 25, 2011
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Application
~
under s.319 Cr.P.C. to implead respondents no. 3 to 9 as co-
c accused in the trial of the petitioner- Trial Court allowed the
application - High Court set aside the order of trial court -
Special leave petitions - Plea of petitioner that question of
prejudice is not relevant in proceedings uls.319 - Held: The
question of prejudice in proceedings uls.319 may not be
0 relevant at the ·stage of proceedings before the trial court u/
s.319 but it is certainly relevant to proceedings under Article
y
..
136 which is discretionary jurisdiction - Article 136 is not a
regular form of appeal - It is a residual provision which
enables the Supreme court to interfere with any order of any
E court or tribunal in its discretion and in exceptional
circumstances - It is not a regular forum of appeal like s. 100
or s. 96, CPC - In the instant case, the impugned judgment
of High Court did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner
since no observation on the merjts of the case was made by
F the High· Court against the petitioner - Merely because the
petitioner alleged that the respondent Nos. 3 to 9 were also
guilty of the same crime is not relevant to interfere with the -
impugned judgment u/Article 136 when no prejudice had
been caused to the petitioner - Trial court directed to
G complete the trial uninfluenced by any observations made by
the High Court - Special /eave petitions dismissed - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319 -
Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - ss. 96, 100.
Lok Ram vs. Nihal Singh and Anr. (2006) 10 SCC 192;
H
838
-
KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA v. INDIAN OIL
CORPORATION & ORS.
839
Bho/u Ramvs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 140;
A
. ~
Suman vs. State ofRajasthan and Anr. 2009 (13) SCALE 716
- Referred to.
Case Law Refetrence:
(2006) 1 o sec 192
(2008) 9 sec 140
Referred to
Referred to
2009 (13) SCALE 716 Referred to
Para 4
Para 4
Para 4
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Crl.} No. c
1646-1647 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.12.2008 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No
52791-M of 2007 and Crl. Rev. No. 71 of 2008.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Amit Bhandari, Ajay Veer
Singh, Nitin Jain, Mohd. lrs.{lad Hanif for the Petitioner.
D
·Qr. Rajiv Dhawan, R.S. Cheema, K.V. Viswanathan,
Kamal Mohan Gupta, Kawaljit Kochar, Ashok K. Sharma,
Kusurii Chaudhary, D.P. Singh, Tarannum Cheema, Sanjay
E
Jain, Anuj Prakash, Abhishek Kaushik, Samir Ali Khan for the
Respodents.
The following order of the Court was delivered
F
ORDER
Heard leave counsel for the appearing parties.
These special leave petitions have been filed against the
impugned judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Gourt dated
G
19.12.2008.
It appears that in the trial of the petitioner an application
was filed by the public prosecutor to implead respondents No.
H
840
SUPREMt:·coURT REPORTS
(2011] 1 S.C.R.
A 3 to 9 herein as co-accused under Section 319 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. That application was allowed by the trial
court, but the High Court has set aside the/said order.
We have carefully perused the impugned order of the High
8
Court. We find that there is no observation made by the High
Court on the merits of the case which in any manner prejudice
the trial of the petitioner. The learnel:I counsel for the petitioner
has relied on the <lecisions of this Court in Lok Ram Vs. Nihal
Singh & Anr., (2006) 10 SCC 192, Bholu Ram Vs. State of
C Punjab & Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 140 an"d Suman Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr., 2009 (13) SCALE 716.
I
On the basis of these judgments the learned counsel fqr
the petitioner has submitted that the question of prejudice is
not relevant in proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C. We are
D of the opinion that it ma.y not be relevant at the stage of
proceedings before the trial court under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
but it is certainly relevant to proceedings under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India, which is discretionary jurisdiction.
E
Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not a regular form
of appeal at all. It is a residual provision which enables the
Supreme Court to interfere with any order of any court or tribunal
in its discretiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.