LexPOPULAR MUTHIAH versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A POPULAR MUTHIAH v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU JULY 4, 2006 B [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 482, 386. 319 and 17 3-lnherent jurisdiction of High Court- C Availability of-In exercise of appellate jurisdiction-Names of two persons left out from the array of accused despite they having been specifically named by all the eye-witnesses-Non-compliance of provision under Section 173- Prosecution of only one accused-Non-exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 by Sessions Judge--Conviction by trial court-High Court confirmed his D conviction, but in exercise of its inherent power directed reinvestigation of the case regarding left out persons by CB-CID, examination of witnesses and their prosecution-On appeal, held: In exercise of appellate power under Section 386, though jurisdiction of High Court is limited, it can exercise its revisional and/or inherent jurisdiction on application as well as suo motu- The inherent power can be exercised both in substantive as also procedural E matters-The power to direct enquiry can be exercised at original as well as appellate stage-However, High Court was not correct in directing re- investigation by a particular investigating agency in a particular manner as. the same does not come within purview of Section 482-ln a case where Magistrate directs further investigation or Sessions Judge exercises power F under Section 319, though an accused is not entitled to be heard, but in the facts of the present case, the left out persons should have been given opportunity of hearing-Matter remitted to High Court for reconsideration. Section 482-/nherent power of High Court-Exercise of-When-Held: It should be exercised sparingly-Where the Code is silent, where the power G of Court is not treated as exhaustive, or where there is specific provision in the Code, or the statute does not fall within purview of the Code and where it acts ex debitor justitiae. In an incident, 3 persons including the appellants· (one appellant abetting the crime) were alleged to have caused death of a person. Despite H JOO POPULAR MUTHIAH v. ST A TE OFT AMIL NADU 101 specific mention of the names of the three, by the witnesses, no charge A sheet was filed against the appellants. Copy of the charge sheet was not sent to the first informant. Even the Magistrate did not inform the first informant. Only one of the accused was committed to Sessions Trial and was convicted. Sessions Judge was neither called upon nor suo motu exercised his jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. In appeal by the B convicted accused, High Court directed fresh investigation by the Investigating Agency so far as the appellants were concerned, observing that the evidence of prosecution witnesses show their involvement; that leaving out their names was not a bonafide error; that provisions of Section 173 (2) (i) Cr.P.C. had not been complied with; and that Sessions Judge ought to have exercised his jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. High C Court directed entrustment of the investigation to CB-CID, examination of witnesses and prosecution of the appellants. High Court, however, confirmed the conviction. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court, the c~rt D HELD: 1. High Court in passing the impugned judgment proceeded on the basis that the independent witnesses had categorically testified about the involvement of the appellants herein as also other accused in hacking the deceased to death and the prosecution case was proved on the basis thereof. The High Court could have arrived at such a finding. (111-D-F) E 2.1. Cr.P.C. is an exhau~tive Code providing a complete machinery to investigate and try cases, appeals against the judgments. It has provisions at each stage to correct errors, failures of justice and abuse of process under the supervision and superintendence of the High Court F Cr.P.C. provides for a corrective mechanism at each stage, viz., (i) investigation; (ii) trial; (iii) appeal and (iv) revision. [112-C-D; 113-E-F) 2.2. Whereas inherent power of a court or a tribunal is generally recognized, such power has been recognized under Cr.P.C only in the High Court and net in any other court. The High Court apart from exercising G its revisional or inherent power indisputably may also exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.