LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF KARNATAKA v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AUGUST 10, 2000 [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Judgment-Dealing with subjects outside !is-High Court while refus- ing leave to appeal against acquittal of accused in a case u/s. 307 /PC making sweeping remarks against present criminal law administration and particu- C larly against police department of State and directing Home Secretary and Home Minister of the State to report to it the reaction of Government to the observations made in the judgment-Held, judgments and orders should confine to facts and legal points involved in particular cases-Observations made by High Court are absolutely uncalled for on the facts of the case- D Directions issued to the Home Secretary and the Home Minister are set aside-Strictures. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, while refusing leave to appeal against acquittal of the accused in a criminal trial for offences including the offence under s.307 I.P.C., made sweeping remarks on the E present system of criminal law administration and particularly against the police department of the State. The subjects referred to by the High Court in its judgment were (1) murders committed with impunity, (2) the in· crease in cases involving atrocities against women, (3) harassment inflicted on young married women, including "bride burning", (4) molestation and F G H rape of girls and young women. The High Court pointed out towards the high percentage of acquittal (i.e. 96.4 % ) in criminal trials and held the investigating agencies, namely, the police ~epartment "responsible" to a very large extent for the deplorable state of affairs and gave directions to the Secretary to Government (Home) and the Home Minister of the State to report to it as to what was the reaction of the Government to the observations made in the judgment. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the present appeal. It was contended for the appellant-State that the observations, par- ticularly the disparagmg remarks made against the police department of the State as a whole were absolutely unnecessary in the instant case and 384 STATE v. REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 385 there was no material available on record for the Court to record such A findings. Disposing of the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The High Court went outside the scope of the tis before it and made observations which are not in tune with the perceptions of judicial exercise. The High Court dealt with subjects which are totally ungermane and far beyond the scope of the present case. The observations made by it are absolutely uncalled for on the facts of the case. [389-B] B 1.2. Judicial decorum requires that judgments and orders should con- C tine to the facts and legal points involved in the particular cases which Judges deal with. May be, sometimes Judges would, perhaps wittingly or even un- wittingly, just outside the contours of the litigation, but even such overlappings should be within bounds of propriety and sobriety. But there is no justification for traversing so far beyond the canvass as was done by the High Court in this case or to cover areas which are grossly extraneous to the subject matter of the case. The problems posed by the High Court have already engaged the attention of the Law Commission. On more than one occasions the Commission has submitted its report for consideration by Parliament. But putting the blame largely on the police force of the State for all the ills pointed out by the High Court, without data or material or evidence in this case, is not a course which .can be approved. Demoralisation of departments would badly erode the already impaired efficiency of our forces . .Judgment should confine to the scope of the case.[389-D-E] D E State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim, AIR (1964) SC 703 = F [1964] 2 SCR 363; R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan & A111:, [1976] 1 SCR 204 =AIR (1975) SC 1741; Niranjan Pa/llaik v. Sashibhushwz Kar & Anr., [1986] 2 SCC 569 =AIR (1986) SC 819 and S.K. Viswambaran v. E.Koyakunju & Ors., [1987] 2 SCC 109 =AIR (1987) SC 1436, relied on. 1.3. By the direction of the High Court, the Home Secretary and the G Home Minister are compelled to react openly to the observations made in the judgment and report to the High Court on such reactions. Such a direction is nothing but an exercise in redundancy. The directions issued to the State Publi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.