LexVIVEK RAI & ANR. versus HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 1014
VIVEK RAI & ANR.
v.
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND THROUGH REGISTRAR
GENERAL & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No.61 of 2012)
FEBRAURY 04, 2015
[T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]
High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 - r. 159 - r. 159
C requiring the accused to surrender to the custody of the court
before filing revision petition - Constitutional validity of - Held:
Rule does not suffer from any infirmity - The general practice
is that a revision against conviction and sentence is filed after
an appeal is dismissed and the convicted person is taken
D into custody in Court itself - Object of the Rule is to ensure
that a person who has been convicted by two courts obeys the
law and does not abscond - Provision cannot thus, be held
to be arbitrary in any manner - Provision is to regulate the
procedure of the Court and does not, in any manner, conflict
. E with the substantive provisions of the Cr. P. C. - Similar
provision exists in the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Rule
does not affect the inherent power of the High Court to exempt
the requirement of surrender in exceptional situations -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14, 21, 32 - Code of
F Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 397, 401..
/
Mahadeo Prasad Shrivastav vs. High Court ~rJharkhand
2004 Crl.L.J.4392; Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan vs.
C.B./. 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 48:2006 (5) sec 752; K.M.
Nanavti vs. State of Bombay (1961) 1 SCR 497 - referred
G to.
Case Law Reference :
2004 Crl.L.J.4392
Referred to
Para 3
H
1014
VIVEK RAI & ANR. v. HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
1015
THROUGH REGISTRAR GEN.
2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 48 Referred to
(1961) 1 SCR 497
Referred to
Para 3, 6
Para 4
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 61 of 2012.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
A
B
M. R. Calla, Siddharth Luthra, Rohan Thawani, Pooja
Dheer, Prgati Neekhra, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Pratiksha
Sharma, Ankit Acharya, Nanita Sharma, Arijit Hazumdan,
Abhinav Mukherjee for the Appearing Parties.
C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This writ petition has
been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking
0
to declare Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules,
2001 as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and
provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."). The rule in question is as follows:
"In the case of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of E
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising out of
conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the petitioner
shall state whether the petition shall be accompanied by
a certified copy of the relevant order. If he has not
surrendered the petition shall be accompanied by an
F
application seeking leave to surrender within a specified
period. On sufficient cause if shown, the Bench may
grant such time and on such conditions as it thinks and
proper. No such revision shall be posted for admission
unless the petitioner has surrendered to custody in the
G
concerned Court."
2. Case of the petitioners is that they have been convicted
and sentenced under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code
("IPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
H
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 1 S.C.R.
A Against the said conviction and sentence, their appeal has
been dismissed and revision petition was filed before the High
Court but the same was not registered on account of impugned
Rule 159 as they failed to surrender to custody. It is submitted
that this Rule is in conflict with the provisions of Criminal
B Procedure Code dealing with the statutory revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court and even in a fit case, the High
Court cannot consider the revision petition and grant bail unless
a convicted person covered by the Rules surrenders to custody.
The Rule being subordinate legislation could not militate against
C the substantive statutory provision. Since the Division Bench
of the High Court has upheld the validity of the Rule and the
special leave petition was dismissed by this Court against the
said judgment, the petitioners have no other remedy except to
approach this Court under Article 32 as their fundamental rights
D under Articles 14 and 21 are affected.
3. A counter affid~vit has been filed by the Registrar
General of the High Court of Jharkhand opposing the prayer
for declaring the Rule to be ultra vires. ReliancExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.