LexSTATE OF ORRISA versus NALINIKANTA MUDULI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ST ATE OF ORRISA v. NALINIKANTA MUDULI AUGUST 12, 2004 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Proceedings quashed by High Court relying on overruled judgment-On appeal, matters remitted to High Court for fresh consideration Professional Conduct-Citing of overruled judgment-Held : Citing a judgment which has been overruled by larger Bench of same High Court A B c or by the Supreme Court without disclosing the fad that it has been overruled is a matter of serious concern-Members of Bar, as officers of Court have a bounden duty to assist the Court and not to mislead it. D Respondent-accused filed petitions u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing chargesheet; for quashing order taking cognizance of offences under IPC and for quashing the orders rejecting prayers to dispense with personal appearance and recall of non-bailable warrant. Another petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. was filed on the ground that concerned E Investigating Officer had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter. High_ Court, relying on judgment passed by High Court, in J.A.C. Saldanha v. Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna and Ors., (1979) ILR (Patna) 459 quashed the proceedings. In appeal, appellant-State contended that reliance on the judg- ment was of no consequence as the same was set aside by Supreme Court in State of Bihar and Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanha and Ors. Etc., (1980] 1 sec 554. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD : It is strange that a decision which has been overruled by this Court nearly quarter of a century back was cited by the Bar and F G the court did not take note of this position and disposed of the matter placing reliance on the said overruled decision. The decision of this H 503 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Court reversing the judgment of the High Court was not brought to the notice of the Single Judge. Members of the Bar are officers of the Court. They have a bounden duty to assist the Court and not mislead it. Citing judgment of a Court which has been overruled by a larger Bench of the same High Court or this Court without disclosing the fact B that it has been overruled is a matter of serious concern. It is one thing that the Court notices the judgment overruling the earlier decision and decides on the applicability of the later judgment to the facts under consideration on it. The matter was dealt with very casually. It was duty of the counsel for the respondent before the High Court to bring C to the notice of the Court that the decision relied upon by the petitioner before the High Court has been overruled by this Court. Moreover, D it was duty of the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court not to cite an overruled judgment. It is not that the decision is lost in antiquity. It has been referred to in a large number of cases since it was rendered. (506-C-F; 506-G-HJ 2. The matter is remitted back to the High Court so that it can deal the petitions afresh and decide on merits taking into account the decision and all other relevant aspects. [507-B-CJ E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 870-872 of 2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.2003 of the Orissa High Court in Cr!. M. Nos. 306, 141 and 149 of 2003. F Radha Shyam Jena for the Appellant. Jana Kalyan Das for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted. The State of Orissa ·questions legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court disposing of three petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short H the 'Code'). The petitions were filed, inter a/ia, -(I) to quash the charge STATE OF ORISSA v. NALINIKANTA MUDULI [PASAYA I, J.] 505 sheet filed by the Investigating Officer (Vigilance Cell) Bhubaneshwar; (2) A to quash the order dated 9.12.2002 taking cognizance of offences punish- able under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'); and (3) to quash the order passed rejecting the prayer in terms of Section 205 of the Code and rejecting the prayer to recall the order directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest. It is to be noted that B Vigilance G.R. Case No. 17 of 200 I was at the relevant point of time pending in the Court of Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. The starting point of litigation was drawing up of first informati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.