LexMANOHARLAL versus VINESH ANAND AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MANOHARLAL VINESH ANAND AND ORS. APRIL 9, 2001 B [A.P. MISRA AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974-Sections 195(l)(b), 195(3) and 340-Arbitrator-Whether a Court-Applicability of provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C.-Held, Arbitrator cannot be tenned to be a Court- C Pmvisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. not applicable-Arbirration and Concilia- tion Act, 1996. Whether an Arhitrato_r, appointed in an arbitration proceeding un- der the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can be termed to be a Court under Section 195(3) Cr.P.C. and the applicability of ~ D Section 340 Cr.P.C. in a proceeding before the Arbitrator were the main E issues involved in the case. Appellant contended that Court means and implies an authority to decide controversy between the parties authoritatively and the decision binding amongst the parties; that an arbitrator can be termed to be a Court under Section 195(3) Cr.P.C.; that new Arbitration enactment i.e., the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 totally excludes the jurisdiction of Courts in the matter of interference with the arbitral awards; that the arbitral award under the Act has the status of a decree of a Court; and that the new enactment should be considered to assess the intent of the F Legislature. Respondent contended that an arbitrator appointed under the Act cannot be termed to be a Court; that though the general trend of legisla- tion is party autonomy, it does not mean and imply total exclusion of jurisdiction of Courts or conferment of such a power of Court to Arbitra- G tor. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. To pursue an offender in the event of commission of an offence is to sub-serve a social need. Society cannot afford to have a H criminal escape his liability, since that would bring about a state of social 1036 MANOHAR LAL v. VINESH ANAND 1037 pollution, which is neither desired nor warranted and this is irrespective of A '-.(C the concept of locus - the doctrine of locus-standi is totally foreign to criminal jurisprudence. (1041-D-E] I ..I.. AR. Antulay v. Ram~ Srinivas Nayak & Anr., (1984] 2 SCC 500, relied on. 1.2. Section 195(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be taken to an explanatory provi· sion. The body of Sdtion 195(1)(h) refers to the expression 'Court' and the ' same is explained 'in sub-section (3). The restriction imposed is easily ascertainable by reason of the inclusion of the words 'if declared by that B Act to be a Court for the purposes of this Section'. One of the golden C cannons of interpretation is that the Legislature always avoid surplusage and attributes a definite meaning to each of the words mentioned in the Statute. By inclusion of sub-section (3) in Section 195 Cr.P.C., the intent of the Legislature cannot thus be far to seek • it is connotative of a definite meaning. [1041-G-H; 1045-A·B] 1.3. The clear language of Section 195(3) Cr.P.C. depict the restric· tive intent of the Legislature and if the intent was otherwise to include Arbitral Tribunal within the fold of Section 195(3) of the Code, i.e.; ifthe Legislature wanted to confe; such a status, there was no difficulty as such in incorporating thereunde~ a provision as is contained in different Central statutes, since these statutes have definitely included and declared the Tribunal being ascribed tp be a Court within the meaning of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The inclusion of explanatory provision by way of sub-section (3) in Section 195 makes the situation abundantly clear. Arbitrator cannot be termed to be a Court within the meaning of Section 195 Cr.P.C., as such the question of applicability of Section 340 Cr.P.C. in a proceeding before the Arbitrator does not arise. [1047-F-H; 1051-B] Baliram Waman Hirav v. Justice B. Lentin & Ors., (1998] 4 SCC 419, relied on. Sailaja Kanta Mitra & Ors. v. State of West Benga4 AIR (1971) Calcutta 137, overruled. D E F G -< Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain, AIR (1956) SC 66; Virinder Kumar v. Stale of Punjab, AIR (1956) SC 153; H. C. Ganti v. F.L Harcourt, AIR (1931) Calcutta 436 and Puhupram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1968) H 1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R. A MPLJ 629, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2000 of the Allahabad High B Court in Cr!. R. No. 2210 of 2000. c D Yogeshwar Prasad, Virendra Singh, Ashish Kr. Srivastava, Dr. l.P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.