LexSATYA NARAYAN SHARMA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
B
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.J
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 5(2 ), 19-Public servants-
Trial against-Stay of-Held, not to be granted on any ground even when·
court is exercising inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal Procedure
C
Code-Further if an enactment contains a specific bar then inherent jurisdiction·
can.not be- exercised to get over that bar-:-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,.
sections 482, 397.
Trial Court took cognizan.ce against the appellant by an order passed· ,
by Special Judge constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act; •
D
1988. Appellant filed miscellaneous .petition\ before High Court, for quashing:• ·.
the order passed by the special Judge and got a stay of the trial. Thereafter,.
the ease was adjourned ftom time to time and as such the trial w~s delayedl
for seven years. Ultimately the High Court dismissed the petition. Hence .
the present appeal.
E·
F
G
.J-.
.Appellants contended that the inherent power, vested in a High ·
Court was' not circumvented by the limitations which are there whilst·
exercising revisional powers and the power to pass stay order was part of. '
the inherent power of the Court. On behalf of the appellant it was contended~ '
that section 19(3)(c) of the Act applies only to the revisional powers ·as
exercised under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code and not to the·' ·
inherent jurisdiction exercised by Higli Court under section 482 of the ·
Code.
On behalf of the respondent it w11s contended th·at the inherent
jurisdiction of a Court could not be exercised if there was a specific
provision for redressal of the grievances of the aggrieved party or.against
an express bar of law _engrafted in any other provision; and that it has to·
be very sparingly exercised only to prevent abuse of process of court or to·
secure the ends of justice.
H
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
268
.._
-
S. N. SHARMA v. STATE
269
HELD : PER VAR/AVA, J. 1. When public servants are sought to be
prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 courts grant 'stay
of the trials without considering and/or in contravention of section 19(3)(c)
of the Act which has an adverse effect on combating corruption amongst
public servants. [271-H; 272-A; B]
2. In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, there can be no
stay of trials. Even if petition under section 482 is entertained there can be
no stay of trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is for the party
to convince the concerned court to expedite the hearing of that petition.
[275-G; H]
3. If section 19 of the Act was only to deal with revisional powers then
clause (b) would have been sufficient. The legislature has, by adding the
words "no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other
ground" under section 19(3){c), clearly indicated that no stay could be
granted by use of any power on any ground. Therefore, section 19 of the
Act would apply even where a court is exercising inherent jurisdiction
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. [275-A-C]
4. Under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code the inherent
power can be exercised even if there was a contrary provision in the
Cr.P.C. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide that
inherent jurisdicti:.'"' can be exercised notwithstanding any other provision
contained in any other enactment. Thus if an enactment contains a specific
bar then inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to get over that bar.
(275-C; DJ
Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra, [1977) 4 SCC 551; Janata
Deal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors., [1992) 4 SCC 305; Indra Sawhney v. Union
of India, [2000) 1SCC168, relied on.
Income Tax Officer v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi, [1969) 2 SCR 65, referred
to.
A
B
c
D
E
F
5. It cannot be said that section 19 of the Act would not apply to a
High Court. Section 5(3) of the Act shows that the Special Court under the
G
Act is a Court of Session. Therefore, the power of revision under/Qr the
inherent jurisdiction can only be exercised by the High Court. [275-F]
PER THOMAS, J. (CONCURRING)
1. When Parliament imposed an undiluted ban against granting stay
H
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
of any proceedings involving an o.ffence under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 on any ground '"'.hatsoever, no court shall circumvent the ban .Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.