MOHD. ASLAM @ BHURE versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 22-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MOHD. ASLAM@ BHURE 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
MARCH 22, 2007 
A 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ., G.P. MA THUR AND R. V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
S.11(1)-Establishment of Special Court-Consultation with High 
Court-Requirement of-Notification by State Government transferring a C · 
case from Special Court, Rai Barel/y to Special Court, Lu-:know-Notification 
not issued in consultation with High Court-High Court holding that Special 
Court, Lucknow has no jurisdiction as notification was not issued in 
consultation with High Court-SLP dismissed by Supreme Court-Review 
Petition-Held. it is for the State Government to take appropriate steps in D 
the matter, if it so desires, by issuing a fresh notification-The earlier order 
passed by Supreme Court dismissing Special Leave Petition does not require 
any re-consideration-There is no error apparent on face of record nor do 
facts and circumstances warrant any interference with earlier order-
Constitution of India, 1950---Article 137-Review-Government of U(tar 
Pradesh Notification No .. 5175/VIJ/Nyaya-2-739187 dated 8.10.1993. 
E 
In the wake of demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya, popularly 
known as "Ram Janma Bhumi/Babri Masjid". Crime No. 197/92 and crime 
No. 198/92 were registered against the 'Kar Sewaks'. Later, 47 more cases 
came to be registered at different places in the State. Investigation of t"1ese 
cases was ultimately entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation. As 
regards Crime No. 198/92, by Notification dated 8. 7.1993, the State 
Government, after consultation with the High Court, shifted the place of sitting 
F 
to the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Rai Barelli. On 8.9.1993, the 
State Government, in consultation with the High Court, issued a notification 
establishing a Special Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Lucknow, G 
for the area comprisin~ the entire State, to try and inquire into and commit 
to the Court of Session all cases arising out of Crime No. 197/92 and 47 
other cases 'in which investigations were made and charge-sheets were filed 
· by CBI. A list of the cases was appended to the Notification, but no mention 
339 
H 
~ 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A was made therein as regards Crime No. 198/92, which already been assigned 
"-
J--.· 
to the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Rai Bareilly, by Notification dated 
8.7.1993. On 8.10.1993 the State Government issued another Notificati9n 
purporting to amend the earlier Notification dated 8.9.1993 and to insert 
therein crime No. 198/92 as item no. 49. When the revision petitions were 
B filed before the High Court against the charges framed by the Sessions Judge, 
the Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge 
so far as it related to Crime No. 198/92 covered by Notification dated 
8.10.1993 on the ground that the said Notification was illegal and invalid for 
_.. 
want of consultation with the High Court as required under s.11(1) Cr.P.C. 
An intervener filed an SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the order 
c of the High Court. The SLP was dismissed. The said intervener filed the 
present review petition. Meanwhile a writ petition was filed before the High 
Court, seeking a direction to the State Government to issue a fresh 
notification after consultation with the High Court, for amendment of 
Notification dated 9.9.2003 to confer jurisdiction on Special Court, Lucknow 
D 
to try or inquire into and commit to the Court of Session the matter relating 
to crime No. 198/92. The High Court declined to issue any direction. The 
SLP against the order of the High Court was dismissed which gave rise to 
-\· 
lo 
Review Petition No. 1648/2005. 
~ 
Dismissing the review petitions, the Court 
E 
HELD: Parties before the High Court conceded that there was no 
consultation by the State Government prior to the issuance of the Notification 
dated 8.10.1993. The Single Judge dealt with the matter elaborately and came 
to the conclusion that there was no consultation with the High Court of 
Allahabad, and before issuance of the Notification, the State Government should 
F have consulted the High Court. It was also an admitted fact that in the Schedule 
~ 
annexed to the Notification dated.9.9.1993, Crime No. 19819.2 was not included. 
'i
The same may be a technical mistake on the part of the State Government. 
The Single Judge was also of the view that the same could be rectified by the 

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