SHEO NANDAN PASWAN versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 702 · Decided: 20-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SHEO NANDAN PASWAN 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
DECEMBER 20, 1986 
[P.N. BHAGWATI C.J., E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, 
V. KHALID, G.L. OZA AND S. NATARAJAN; JJ.] 
• 
Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court-Consti-
tution of India, 1950, Article 137 read with Rule I of order XL of the 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966--Nature of the power of Review by the 
c Supreme Court-Whether the Supreme Court could interfere with the 
granting consent orders for "Nolles Prosequi" against the accused, when 
the orders of the Special Judge, of the High Court in Revision, and of 
the majority of the Judges of the S~preme Court in an appeal by special 
leave, were in favour of the accused. 
0 
Review order is to the effect "the review petition should be admit-
ted and the appeal should be reheard immediately after the decision of 
Nandini Satpathi's case Cr/. Appeals 48 and 49 referred to a Constitu-
tion Bench"-Meaning and consequ.ence of the order admitting the 
Review Petition-Whether the judgment sought to be reviewed was set 
aside or not. 
E 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, .section 321-Withdrawal 
from the Prosecution-Scope and construction of the provisions of the 
section as to the power of the Public Prosecutor to withdraw and the 
power.to grant consent to·such withdrawal by the Magistrate-Whether 
on the face of the record, there was any error apparent-Whether 
the principle of administrative law be invoked for construing the 
F section. 
Locus' standi of a complainant in a criminal proceedings to file a 
revision before the High Court and an appeal by special leave before the 
Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, against an order 
G granting consent to withdraw the criminal case. 
"Discharge" of an accused, consequent to the consent passed by 
the Magistrate under section 321 and "Discharge" of an accused made 
under section 227 or 239 of the Code of <;riminal Procedure. 
Under Article 137 of the Constitution of lndia The Supreme 
H Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order 
.702 
+ 
+ 
)--
, . 
\ 
' 
·+ 
-+ 
-f .. 
SHEONANDANPASWANv.STATEOFBIHAR 
703 
made by it, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or A 
any rules made under Article 145. The Supreme Court, in exercise of 
the powers conferred by Article 145 of the Constitution and all other 
powers enabling it and with the approval of the President made the 
"Snpreme Court'Rules 1966". Under Rule 1 of Order XL thereof, the 
"Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review 
will be entertained • . . . . . in a criminal proceeding except on the B 
ground of an error apparent on the face of the record." 
Patna Urban Cooperative Banks was registered in May 1970 :ind 
it commenced its banking business ·with Nawal Kishore Sinha as its 
Chairman, K.P. Gupta as its Honorary Secretary, M.A. Hydary as 
Manl'ger and A.K. Singh as loan clerk. Dr. Jagannath Misra who was c 
then a Member of the Legislative Council was closely associated with 
Nawal Kishore Sinha and helped the Cooperative Bank and Nawal 
Kishore Sinha in !fiverse ways in connection with the affairs of the Bank 
and assisted in mobilisation of the resources for the Bank. There were 
some irregularities in the affairs of the Bank. The then Chief Miliister 
Slu<i Abdul Ghafoor ordered the prosecution of the officers and staff of D 
the Bank including it• Honorary Secretary Shri'K.P. Gupta, Ma.nager, 
M-.A. Haidary 'and the loan clerk. However, this was not done. On 
11.4.1975 Shri Abdul Ghafoor was replaced by Dr. Jagannath Misra 
as Chief Minister. On May 16, 1975 he passed an order that oniy stern 
action should be taken for realisation of loans since on the perusal of the · 
file it appeared there was no allegation of defalcation against the 
E 
Chairman and members of the Board. This date is alleged to have been 
later changed to May 14, 1975 by a fresh order. As per the revised order 
directions for restoration of normalcy and holding of Annual General 
Meeting "of the bank was made. On 15.4.1976 the Reserve Bank cancel- · 
led the banking licence issued to the Banli. and a liquidator was 
appointed. Consequent to the report of the Estimates Committee and 
F 
the debate in the Assembly, Dr. Jagannath Misra directed, on 4.8.76 
the prosecution against those involved in the defalcation. Thus 23 crimi-
nal cases were filed against the office he!lrers and loanees but Nawal 
Kishore Sinha was excluded from being arraigned as. an accused. 

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