RAMBHAU AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 26-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
RAMBHAU AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
APRIL 26, 2001 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
Sections 13(l)(d) and 13(2)-Conviction under-Validity of 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 313, 391. 
Court-Power to take additional evidence-Principles for exercise of 
such power. 
D 
Accused-Charge of accepting illegal gratijication-Factum of payment 
E 
of illegal gratification-Not put to accused persons in examination under 
Section 313-Additional Examination of accused persons conducted by High 
Court-Held valid-Object of Section 391 explained. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 41, Rule 27-Nature of power-Held akin to Section 391 Cr.P.C. 
The a1>pellant, a Sub-Inspector of Police, alongwith another co-accused, 
was 1>rosecuted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the 
Prevention of Corru1>tion Act, 1988. The trial court acqujtted the accused 
F 
persons but on appeal the High Court convicted them for the offences charged. 
During the hearing of appeal defence pointed out an irregularity to the High 
Court vis. that the factum of the payment of alleged illegal gratification as 
per the version of complainant was not put to the accused persons in their 
examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
With a view to rectify the alleged irregularity the High Court exercised its 
G power under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and 
conducted additional examination of both the accused persons. 
In a1>peal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
the High Court had no authority or jurisdiction to examine the accused 
H persons so as to rectify the defect and the lacuna in the prosecution. 
210 
r 
RAMBHAU v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
211 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The finding of the High Court that accused persons are 
guilty of the offence for which they were charged is correct. (217-F] 
A 
2. Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 forms an 
exception to the general rule that an appeal must be decided on the evidence B 
which was before the Trial Court and the 1wwers being an exception shall 
always have to be exercised with caution and circumspection so as to meet 
the ends of justice. The doctrine of finality of judicial proceedings does not 
stand annulled or affected in any way by reason of exercise of power under 
Section 391 since the same avoids a denovo trial. It is not to fill up the lacuna C 
but to sub-senre the ends of justice. The power is available to the Court not 
to fill up any gap in the prosecution case but to oversee that the concept of 
justice does not suffer. No set of principles can be set forth for such an 
exercise of power under Section 391, since the same is dependant upon the 
fact-situation of the matter and having due regard to the concept of fair play 
and justice, well being of the society. But additional evidence cannot and D 
ought not to be received in such a way so as to cause any prejudice to the 
! 
accused. It is not a disguise for a re-trial or to change the nature of the case 
against the. accused. [213-A-C, 212-G] 
Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal and Anr:, AIR (1965) 
SC 1887, referred to. 
E 
3. The word 'irregularity' means and implies contrary to rule. It 
clearly covers any case where a thing has not been done in the manner laid 
down by the statute, irrespective of what that manner might be. The omission 
rectified by the High Court cannot but be ascribed to be a mere irregularity. 
It is not a defect incurable in nature but a mere irregularity which the High F 
Court thought it fit to cure. No material objection can be taken to such a 
method adopted by the High Court. [217-C-E] 
The Martin Burn Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta, AIR (1966) SC 
529, referred to. 
Corporation of Calcutta v. Chandoola/ Bhai Chand Modi 57 Calcutta 
W.N. 882; AIR (1953) Calcutta 773, approved. 
Black's Law Dictionary, referred to. 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. H 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A 636 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.6.93 of the Bombay High Court 
).....,, 
in Crl. A. No. 118of1992. 
M.P. Verma and N.K. Agga1wal for the Appellant. 
B 
S.V. Deshpande and S.M. Jadhav for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BANERJEE, J. There is available a very wide discretion in the matter 
C of obtaining additional evidence in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.