LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus KUPPUSWAMY GOWNDER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF KARNATAKA
A
v.
KUPPUSW AMY GOWNDER
FEBRUARY 16, 1987
[G.L. OZA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.]
B
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: ss.194, 409, 462 & 465: Sentence
-i
or order of competent Court-When to be quashed-Prejudice pleaded
and proved-Means failure of justice.
~
The case of the respondent-accused was committed to the Sessions c
-
Court, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City and made over under s. 194
'
Cr.P.C. by the Principle Sessions Judge for trial to the II Additional
Sessions Judge who framed charges on August 2 1, 1980 and recorded
--{
the plea of the accused persons.
In the monthly statement of October, 1980 the case was shown D
pending on the board of II Additional Sessions Judge and listed for
evidence. On November 17, 1980 the Bangalore City Civil Courts Act
came into force and powers of Sessions were conferred on all the City
Civil Judges under s.9(3) Cr.P.C. In the monthly statement prepared
ther~after for November, )980 the case was shown pending before the
IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge. However, the evidence in
E
the case was recorded and the respondent accused convicted under
s.302 and 332 IPC by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge.
In appeal and reference the High Court looked into the monthly
statements of pending cases and observing that there was no order
'-1--
under s.407 Cr.P.C. transferring the case from the file of the IV Addi-
F
tional City Civil and Sessions Judge to the file of III Additional City
i
Civil and Sessions Judge, that as the charge was framed and plea re-
corded when the case was pending before the II additional Sessions
Judge the case could not be withd.rawn by the Principle Sessions Judge
under s.409(2) after the commencement of the trial and allotted to any
other Additional Sesssion Judge that there was no order of the Principal
G
Session Judge under s. 194 transferring the case to the board of III
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and that the defect could not
be remedied under s.465 Cr.P.C., quashed the conviction and directed
remand for retrial. The State came in appeal to this Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
H
295
A
B
c
D
E
296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 2 S.C.R.
HELD: I. I The view taken by the High Court was contrary to
the language of ss.462 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
judgment of the High Court could not, therefore, be sustained. [304A]
l.2 Reading s.462 alongwith s.465 goes to show that the scheme
of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that where there is uo inherent
lack of jurisdiction, merely either on the ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction or on the ground of any irregularity of procedure an order
of sentence awarded by a competent court could not be set aside unless pre-
judice is pleaded and prov1od, which will mean failure of justice. l303F-G)
In the instant case, it is not found by the High Court that the
Sessions Judge who tried the case arising out of the Sessions Division
had no jurisdiction. The Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City has a Ses-
sions Division and is presided over by a Principal Sessions Judge and
has a number of Additional Sessions Judges. All the Sessions Judg.s
sitting in this Division are notified as Sessions Judges for the Division
and, therefore, all of them have jurisdiction to try a case arising out of
the Sessions Division. the 11Iea of prejudice of failure of justice is neither
pleaded nor. proved. Not only that, even the judgment of the High Court
does not indicate any possibility of prejudice or failure of justice. There
was no suggestion either of any possibility of prejudice or failure of
justice. The order passed by the III Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge could not, therefore, be quashed. l302A-C)
2. Section 462 Cr .P.IC. even saves a decision if' the trial has taken
place in a wrong Sessions Division or Sob-Division or a district or other
local area where the court has no territorial jurisdiction, and such an
error could only be of some consequence if it results in failure of -r
justice, otherwise no finding or sentence could be set aside only on the
F
basis of such an error. Therefore, even if the trial before the III
~
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge wonld have taken place in a
Division other than the Bangalore . Metropolitan Area for which III
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge is also notified to be a Sessions
Judge, still the trial could not have been qExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.