LexSTATE THROUGH SPECIAL CELL, NEW DELHI versus NAVJOT SANDHU @ AFSHAN GURU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B ST A TE THROUGH SPECIAL CELL, NEW DELHI v. NAVJOT SANDHU @ AFSHAN GURU AND ORS. MAY 9, 2003 (S.N. VARIAVA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] Constitution of India, I950; Articles 226 and 227/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; SS.397 and 482 /Prevention of Terrorism Act,2002; S.34: C Accused filed applications objecting use of 'intercepted conversation' as an evidence to prove charges under POTA-Dismissed by the Trial Court- Appeals/Petitions under Sec.34 of POTAIS.482 Cr.P.C./Art.227 Constitution of India-Reversed by the High Court-Power of High Court to interfere with Interlocutory Order/Orders of the Courts below-Held: Since no appeal lies against an interlocutory order under POTA, by entertaining an appeal High D Court deprived respondent of an opportunity of canvassing on the point of law in the statutory appeal-Since trial was not concluded, there was no miscarriage of justice/palpable illegality, which warranted interference by the High Court- High Court possess inherent power under Sec.482 Cr.P.C./Art.227 of the Constitution to inrerfere with Orders of the Courts below but not to correct an E error in interpretation -Interference by the High Court at the trial stage not justified-Ends of justice would be served by giving effect to Sec.34 of POTA and not to interfere with the impugned Order-Directions issued-Penal Code, 1860-Ss. I20, 120B,I2I,I2/A,/22,/24,/86,332,353,302 and 307-Explosive Substances Acts-Ss.3,4,5-Arms Act-Ss.25,27-lnterpretation of the Statute- The Telegraph Act-Sec.5 rlw Rule 419A. F Words and Phrases: 'Inherent power-Meaning of According to the prosecution, the Investigating agencies intercepted G the conversation between the accused-respondents and terrorists of a banned terrorist organization which showed that the accused persons hatched a conspiracy which had resulted in the attack on the Parliament of India by the terrorists in which five terrorists were killed in an encounter with the Police. A case was registered against l.he accused under various sections of Penal Code, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act. H 130 STATE THROUGH SPECIAL CELL v. NA V JOT SANDHU@ AFSHAN GURU 13 J Later, on the basis of relevant and cogent materials, relevant Sections of A POTA were also added. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge. Pending trial, accused filed an application seeking a direction that the intercepted conversation should not be used as an evidence for proving the charges under POT A. The Special Judge dismissed the application by an interlocutory order dated B 19th December 2001. Aggrieved, respondents filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 r/w Sec.482 Cr.P.C. and appeal u/s.34 of POTA. The High Court reversed the order of the trial court. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: I.I. Had the Special Judge followed the dictum/procedural guidelines laid down by the Court in the case of * Bipin Shanti/al Panchal c v. State of Gujarat and Anr. no prejudice would have been caused to the respondents inasmuch as their arguments/objections would have been decided at the stage of final hearing. If the Court was in their favour the D evidence could have been eschewed and not considered. Any decision given at that stage could have been challenged in the appeal under Section 34 of POTA. Ignoring the dictum the Special Judge chose to hear detailed arguments and dismissed the a!Jplications. (137-C, D] *Bipin Shanti/al Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2001] 3 sec E I, relied on. 1.2. On the facts of the instant case, neither the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India nor inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should have been exercised, even if such powers were available. (141-B, Cf 1.3. Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout F the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any act of the State Legislature. The G supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate Tribunal within the limits of their authority and to see that they obey the law. The powers under Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice. They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory order. However, the power under Article 227 is a discretiona
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.