LexPAMPAPATHY versus STATE OF MYSORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A • 0 D B F G 47i PAMPAPAIBY STATE OF MYSORE July 28, 1966 IM. HmAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND J. M. SttELAT, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), s. 561A:-Appea! . to High Court against conviction-Accused released on bat! by High Court-If bail can be cancelled by High Court. The appelkints were released on bail by the High C.ourt under s. 426 Cr. P.C., pending disposal of their appeal in the High .Co~. On an application by the State that the appellants .were misusing their liberty and committing acts of violence, the bail was cancelled by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers. under s. 561-A, Cr. P. Code. On the question whether the High Court had such power, HELD: The inherent power of the High Court under s. 561 A, Cr. P.C., can be exercised either for giving effect to any order under the Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent abuse of the process of " court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; but such power can- not be invoked in respect of any matter covered by a specific provi- sion or inconsistent with any specific provision of the Crimip.al Pro~ cedure Code. Under ss. 497 and 498, Cr. P.C., the Legislature has made express provision for the cancellation of bail in certain cases, but there is no express provision when an appellant is released on bail under s. 426 Cr. P.C. The omission must be due to inadvertence and cannot be regarded as deliberate, otherwise the subsequent con- duct of the appellant, however reprehensible it may be, will not justify the High C'-Ourt in cancelling the order of bail. Since the allegations aga'.nst the appellant prima facie indicate abuse of the process of the Court, s. 561 A is attracted to the case and the High Court was entitled to cancel the bail. f481 F-H; 482 D, Fl Lala Jairam Das v. King Emperor, L.R. 72 I.A. 120, explained. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 121 and 122 of 1966. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 14. 1966 of the Mysore High Court in Crimin a 1 Revision Petitions Nos. 120 and 123 of 1966 respectively. M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agw·wala. for the appellants (in both the appeals). R. Gopa/akrishnan and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respon- dents (in both the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H Ramaswami, J. The appellants- Pampapathy and Shekarappa were tried in the Court of Sessions at Chitradurga for offences under ss. 147, 148, 307, 323, 302 read with s. 149 and s. 325 read 478 St:PRF!dE COURT REPORTS [1966] BUPP. s.c.R. with s. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted of all the A offences other than under s. 307 and s. 302 read with s. 149, Indian Penal Code. The case of the proseqution was that the appellants. along with others, some of whom were dismissed workers of Devangiri Cotton Mills and Shri Ganeshar Textiles Mills and some of whom were office bearers and members of the Devangiri Cotton Mills Employees' Association and Shri Ganeshar Textiles Mills Workers Union, conspired with the common object of committing murder and other offences with a view to strengthen their Associations • and to weaken the rival Unions which had the sympathy of the Mill Managements. It was alleged that they intended to create fear in the mind of the Management of the Mills in order to gain Cl their object of getting more bonus and get the dismissed workers re-instated. It was stated that they formed themselves into an un- lawful assembly, armed themselves with deadly weapons. and attacked the deceased Heggappa and other loyal workers on the night of March 19, 1964 causing the death of Heggappa and injuries to 4 persons. The Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated Decem- ber 7, 1964 convicted both the appellants for offences under ss. 147, 148, 323, 324 and 325 read with s. 149, Indian Penal Code. The appellants preferred appeals to the Mysore High Court and on admission of the appeals they were directed to be released on bail. On March 7, 1966, the State made two applications under ss. 498(2) and 561A. Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of the bail granted to the two appellants. In support of the two peti- tions an affidavit was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Devangiri Division-Sri K. Srinivasa Alwa, stating that the two appellants were misusing their liberty ever since they were en- larged on bail by doing acts of violence, creating trouble by insti- gating the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.