Constitution of India – Articles 136 and 142 – Expansion of scope of appeal in light of decision in Yomeshbhai Pranshankar Bhatt v. State of Gujarat (2011) 6 SCC 312; Kutchi Lal Raeshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust v. Collector, Haridwar (2017) 16 SCC 418 and Indian Bank v. Godhara Nagrik Coop. Credit Society Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 541 – Considered and relied on:
Held: This Hon’ble Court while acquitting the accused in Yomeshbhai Pranshankar Bhatt v. State of Gujarat (2011) 6 SCC 312, a case where limited notice was issued while granting leave and at the stage of hearing the expansion of the scope was sought for, held that: (a) by exercising Article 142 of the Constitution this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decrees and may make such orders as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matters pending before it; (b) No fetter is imposed on the Court’s jurisdiction except of course any express provision of the law to the contrary and normally this Court cannot ignore the same while exercising its power under Article 142; (c) An order passed by the Court at the time of admitting a petition does not have the status of an express provision of law and the observations in it are tentative observations which cannot limit this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 142 – While deciding Kutchi Lal Raeshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust v. Collector, Haridwar (2017) 16 SCC 418 reliance was placed on Indian Bank v. Godhara Nagrik Coop. Credit Society Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 541 and it was held that Article 142 embodies the fundamental principle that the jurisdiction of the Court is to render complete justice – When the Court initially issues a limited notice but subsequently grants leave, the scope of the appeal does not raise a matter of jurisdiction but of judicial discretion and the guiding principle has to be the advancement of substantial justice. [Paras 10,11,13-14]
Art. 136 of Constitution of India – Expansion of scope of appeal – Taherakhatoon (D) by Lrs. vs. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635 and Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia (1998) 4 SCC 39 – Distinguished:
Held: The question involved in Taherakhatoon (D) by Lrs. v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635 was not with regard to the scope of expansion of notice in an SLP but with regard to the continued discretionary power vested in the Court at the stage when the appeal comes up for hearing after admission of SLP under Article 136 of the Constitution – In Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia (1998) 4 SCC 39 this Court displayed guarded approach regarding expansion of scope of appeal – But it was a decision rendered in a statutory appeal under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not in an appeal after granting leave under Article 136. [Paras 8-9,12-14]
Recent development of jurisprudence in criminal matters – Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2023) 9 SCC
164 – Referred to:
Held: In Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2023) 9 SCC 164, this Court had taken a pro-liberal and justice-oriented approach to secure the liberty of citizens – Even after a convict’s challenge to his conviction and sentence failed, his case was still reopened upon a co-convict’s appeal, directed against the same judgment when the latter succeeded – A similar relief granted to the co-convict was extended to the convict by even recording an order of acquittal [Para 15]
Article 136 and Article 142 r/w Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Expansion of scope of appeal – Whether discretion was exercised by this Court:
Held: When a party demonstrates patent infirmity in the findings recorded in the impugned judgment, or a glaring error in the procedure followed having the effect of vitiating the proceedings is shown to exist, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, which might have been overlooked by the Bench when it issued limited notice Justice becomes a real casualty if the same or the subsequent Bench is held to be denuded of its jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the contentions relatable to points not referred to in the notice issuing order – Since exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary, the jurisdiction to decide all legal and valid points, as raised, does always exist and would not get diminished or curtailed by a limited notice issuing order – If this position is not accepted, Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 read with Article 142 of the Constitution will lose much of its significance – Discretion was exercised by this Court and the scope of appeal was enlarged. [Para 16]
Section 468 r/w section 120(B), section 271 and section 465 r/w 120(B) and section 420 r/w section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Whether the charges are proved against the appellant and quantum of sentence is sufficient:
Held: The appellant was a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India and was found guilty of being instrumental, together with a co-convict in obtaining settlement of two insurance claims by projecting the insured as dead although he was, in fact, alive – In evidence it was brought out that the appellant who was friends with insured along with the co-convict took the policies from insured on the assurance that the same will be upgraded and also the appellant could not satisfactorily explain why he filled up the six blank cheques (Exhibits 4-9) for different amounts totaling to Rs. 1,67,583, i.e., the amount for satisfaction of the insurance claim – The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court holding the appellant guilty under the aforementioned sections is upheld – The decision in State of Gujarat v. Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi (1972) 2 SCC
392 has no application herein and was distinguished – The order of limited notice dated January 3, 2014 had also called upon the respondents to show cause on the question of sentence imposed upon the appellant, meaning thereby that prima facie a case for alteration/modification of the sentence had been set up – Since the date of the incident relates back to 2004 and the appellant has spent a little less than 2/3rd of the prison term of
36 (thirty-six) months in custody, in interest of justice the term of imprisonment is modified to the period of sentence already undergone. [Paras 18-21, 25]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.