MAYURAM SUBRAMANIAN SRINIVASAN versus CBI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 48 · Decided: 16-06-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MA YURAM SUBRAMANIAN SRINIVASAN 
v. 
C.B.I. 
JUNE 16, 2006 
(ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966--0rder XX/ Rule 13 A--Applicability-
Criminal Appeal-Surrender of appellant a pre-condition for registering 
C appeal-Requirement of-Held: Criminal appeal cannot be posted unless proof 
of surrender had been fi1rnished by the appellant who has been convicted-
The requirements of Rule I 3A are mandatory in character and have to be 
complied with except when an order is passed for exemption from 
surrendering- Section 9(4) of Special Courts Act authorises only Special Court 
to regulate the procedure before it and does not authorize to regulate the 
D proceedings before Supr~me Court---Section 389 Cr.P.C does not have 
overriding effect over the R.ule--Both are independent provisions and have! to 
be considered on their own standing-Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating 
to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992--Sections 9( 4) and I 0---Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973--Section 389. 
E 
Constitution of India. 1950---Article 141--Doctrine of precedent-Held: 
F 
Where a decision has been rendered without reference lo statutory bars, the 
same cannot have any precedent value and have to be treated as having been 
rendered per incuriam_ 
Words and Phrases: 
"lncuria"-Meaning of 
Appellants filed an appeal in this Court under Section 10 of Special 
Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992. 
The Special Court had already suspended the sentence for a particular 
G period. The Office Report pointed out that appellant in each appeal had 
not surrendered and therefore in terms of Supreme Court Rules, 1966, 
the criminal appeal could not be taken up. Appellants' case was that . 
Supreme Court Rules had no application to the present case in view of 
H 
48 
• 
) 
MA YURAM SUBRAMANIAN SRINIVASAN v. C.B.I. 
49 
~. 
special provision under Section 9(4) of the Act authorizing the concerned A 
court to regulate its procedure. Appellants also relied on several orders 
stating that in several appeals under Section 10 of the Act, this Court had 
directed suspension of the substantive sentence during the hearing of the 
appeal subject to furnishing of personal bond and had not required 
surrender of the accused appellant. 
Ordering that the appeals be posted only after filing of proof of 
surrender of appellants, the Court 
HELD: Per Arijit Pasayat, J: 
B 
1.1. Criminal Appeal cannot be posted unless proof of surrender has C 
been furnished by the appellant who has been convicted. The requirements 
of Order XXI Rule 13A of Supreme Co_urt Rules, 1966 are mandatory in 
character and have to be complied with except when an order is passed 
for exemption from surrendering. 154-E-F) 
1.2. Under Section 9(4) of Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating D 
to Transaction in Securities Act, 1992) Special Court is authorized to 
formulate its own procedure to be adopted. That cannot do away with the 
requirement stipulated under Order XXI Rule 13A. The rules have been 
framed in exercise of powers conferred by Article 145 of the Constitution 
and all other powers in this behalf, by this Court and the Rules have been E 
made with the approval of the President. (54-G-H) 
1.3. It is not correct to say that Order XXI Rule 13A cannot in any 
way affect the powers available to Special Court under Section 9(4) 
because Section 9(4) only permits the Special Court to regulate the 
procedure before it. That in no way authorizes the Special Court to F 
regulate the proceedings before this Court. 157-C-DJ 
1.4. Section 389 (3) Cr.P.C. has application when there is a right of 
appeal. Where prayer for grant of certificate of High Court to appeal in 
this Court in terms of Article 134 A of the Constitution of India, 1950 or G 
is made under Article 136 of the Constitution there is no right of appeal 
involved. In such cases Section 389(3) has no application. But the position 
is different when a case is covered under Article 134(1)(a) or Article 
134(l)(b) being covered under Section 2 of the Supreme Court 
(Enlargement of Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. An appeal under 
H 
50 
SUPREME COllRT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Section I 0 of Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in 
Securities Act, 1992 Act falls to the category of cases where there is a right 
of appeal. 153-B-C; E-FJ 
Ram Kumar Pande v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1975) SC 
1252 and Chandra 

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