STAIB OF TAMIL NADU
v.
SELVI J. JAYALALITHA
APRIL 25, 2000
[K.T. THOMAS AND MRS. RUMA PAL, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :
Criminal Revision-Pending before High Court-Prayer to discharge
the accused of the offences-Trial pending at final stage of prosecution evi-
dence-Appeal by State against Order of High Court-Prayer on behalf of
accused for permission to withdraw the criminal revisions filed before High
Court without prejudice to her right to raise all contentions in the trial court
afresh-Held, criminal revision. would stand dismissed as withdrawn accord-
ingly-Trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
CRIMINAL APPELLAIB JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
395-397 of 2000.
. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.2000 of the Madras High
Court in Crl.R.C. Nos. 406/98, 606199 and 930 of 1999.
Shanti Bhushan, V.R. Reddy, N. Natarajan, Anil B. Diwan, R. Mohan,
R. Shunmugha Sundaram and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellant.
Shushil Kumar, K.V. Viswanathan, N. Jothi, Sanjay Jain, Kunwar Ajit
Mohan Singh, R.P. Wadhwani and K. V. Venk.ataraman for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
When we heard Shri Santi Bhushan, Learned senior counsel for the State
of Tamil Nadu on 18.4.2000, he frankly conceded that the offence under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be charged against the respondent
on the facts of this case. However, learned senior counsel addressed detailed
arguments regarding sustainability of the other offences included in the charge
framed against the respondent, and seriously attacked the reasons of the
learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the impugned order. Shri
Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel who argued for the respondent defended
'
563
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000) 3 S.C.R.
the order. We are told that the impugned order was passed by the High Court
when the trial court has reached almost the final stage of prosecution evidence,
as only a few more witnesses remained to be examined. When we expressed
to Shri Sushil Kumar that it was not proper for the Single Judge to have
expressed final opinion on the merits of the legal interpretations regarding the
points raised, when the trial has reached such a stage, learned senior counsel
wanted time to get instructions as to whether the petitions filed by the
respondent to discharge the accused can be withdrawn without prejudice to her
rights to raise all the contentions in the trial court afresh. We granted till).e till
today.
Learned counsel for the respondent now seeks permission. to withdraw
the criminal revision petitions filed in the High Court (Crl. Revision Complaint
Nos. 406/1998, 606/1999 and 930/1999) without prejudice to her rights to
raise all the contentions in the trial court afresh. In fact an application has been
filed on behalf of the respondent seeking permission to withdraw, uncondition-
ally, Criminal Revision Petitions numbered as above filed before the High
Court of Madras. That application will be on record. We order that the above
revision petitions filed in the High Court would stand dismissed as withdrawn.
However, we, permit the respondent to raise all contentions which she thinks
necessary before the trial court at the final stage. We, therefore, declare that
the impugned common judgment dated 13.1.2000 passed by the High Court
of Madras will stand erased. If the trial court is to decide any questions which
have been dealt with in the impugned judgment the same shall be decided as
though the High Court has not pronounced any opinion on such questions thus
far. The trial court will now proceed to conclude the trial and dispose it of in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
R.P.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex