STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus DR. BUDHIKOTA SUBHARAO

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 300 · Decided: 16-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
DR. BUDHIKOTA SUBHARAO 
MARCH 16, 1993 
B 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973: 
Section 482. Court proceedings-Mala fides-May be legal or fac-
C tuaf---Procuring order on incorrect facts-Reprehensibl.,_practice and proce-
dure. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
High Court-Judge may have unchallenged and unfettered power to 
direct office to list case before him-Judicial discipline restricts excercise of 
this power. 
Judgments-Stn1ctures of 'sharp practices' suppression of facts, obtain-
jng orders by playing fraud-{Jse of 
The respondent, an ex-Naval Officer and Computer Science 
Graduate was accused of leaking Atomic Energy Secr,,ts_and~iolati11g the 
provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. He filed an. application for 
quashing the charge sheet framed under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and 
the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and for release of his passport before the 
Division Bench of the High Court which passed an order on 13.2.1991 that 
it may be presented before the trial Judge. On the very next day the 
Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the parties directed that the 
passport and identity card or the respondent be returned, and he per-
mitted the respondent to leave India and travel abroad as per his itinerary 
during the period from 17.2.1991 to 22.2.1991 on executing a personal . 
bond or Rs.50,000. 
The appellant - State was disturbed by this order as serious charges 
had been levelled against the respondent who had been arrested, earlier, 
jnst when he was about to leave the country and board the plane, for 
leakage of official secrets and whose bail had even, been cancelled by this 
Court; appeared to be in danger or leaving the country again. 
-H 
Since the order was passed on 14.2.91 and the respondent was to fly 
JM 
-
-
-
-
STATE v. DR. BUDHJKOTA 
301 
on 17.2.91 and 16.2.91 was a Saturday, the State Challenged the correct-
A 
ness of the order passed by the Additional Sessi9ns Judge by way of a writ 
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with section 482 of 
Criminal Procedure Code and a Single Judge, who under the rules was 
entitled to hear such a petition, passed an ex-parte order on 15.2~91 
staying that part of the order which permitted the respondent to leave the 
country and directed the application to be listed for further orders on 
18.2.91. 
B 
The Respondent on coming to know of this order, in the evening, 
approached the Division Bench of the High Court where the·maln petKiu 
was pending on 16.2.1991, which after making an observation that the C 
Public prosecutor ought to have brought it to the notice o'f the Sin;le 
Judge that the main matter was pending before the Division Bench IUld 
the trial Judge had passed the order in pursuance of the direction issued 
by the Division Bench, directed that the matter, being urgent, it should be 
placed before the same single Judge. 
Consequent thereto the parties appeared before the Judge on 
16.2.1991 who after hearing them confirmed the interim order. 
D 
E 
When the revision petition filed by the State directed against the 
order acquitting the respondent accused, was taken up for hearing and 
observations were made, during course of judgment dictated in open court 
from 5th to 12th October, 1991 against the public prosecutor and the 
State, the respondent appears to have made a mention on 10th October 
that the writ petition filed by the State against the order of the trial judge 
releasing his passport and permitting him to travel abroad may be sum-
moned and disposed of. This requesfwas accepted and on direction or the 
F 
Judge the office listed the case beforelliim on Uth October, and when the 
petition was taken up, on 11th Octcll\er, and the public prosecutor was 
asked if she had any objection to hearing it was stated by her that it did 
not survive. 
The Judge after completion of judgment in criminal revision on 12th G 
October, took up the writ petition. The Single Judge passed the order 
which is the subject matter or the appeal and directed the payment of 
-.Y"--
Rs.25,000 compensation for consultancy loss, suffered by the respondent 
due to the ex-parte order obtained by the State against the order of th• 
trial judge permitting the respondent to go abroad. 
H 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The State appealed to this Court questioning the validity of the 
B 
c 
order of the Single Judge dated 28.10.91. 
·-{-
Allo\\ing the State's appeal and the in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.