Advisable That High Court Delivers Judgment Soon After Conclusion Of Arguments : Supreme Court

While considering a criminal appeal wherein High Court had delivered the judgement after reserving it for six months, the Supreme Court has observed that it is always advisable that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved.The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed this while setting aside Allahabad High Court's order of quashing the entire criminal proceedings in cheating case."At the outset, it is required to be noted that the High Court has delivered the impugned judgment and order after a period of six months after the matter was reserved for judgment. Though the judgment and order passed by the High Court may not be set aside on the aforesaid ground only, however it is always advisable that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved", the Court observed.A long delay in delivery of the judgment gives rise to unnecessary speculations in the minds of the parties in a case, the Court said quoting from Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and Ors. vs. HPA International and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 13.On merits, the Court found that the High Court exceeded the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC by conducting a "mini-trial" in the case."Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the manner in which the High Court has allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings is unsustainable. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C," the Court observed.In the present matter the original informant of the FIR on September 7, 2018 had sent a demand order of delivery of 3 trucks of beer to M/S United Breweries Limited and transferred a sum of Rs 92,98,902. Since 2 trucks of beer were to be delivered to Lucknow and one in Varanasi, United Breweries Limited directed its transporter to to arrange a vehicle and deliver goods to the informant. The consignment of the beer was dispatched through the arranged trucks but since there were lost mid way, the informant lodged an FIR u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. In the meanwhile, the transporter also filed FIR u/s 406 and 420 of IPC against the two truck drivers and one unknown person. After conclusion of investigation in both the FIR's, IO's filed their chargesheets. Since the officials of M/S United Breweries Limited were arrayed as accused in the FIR filed by the informant, they approached Allahabad High Court seeking to set aside the chargesheet filed against them.The High Court on March 6, 2020 quashed the entire criminal proceedings (chargesheet as well as summoning order) aggrieved by which the informant and the State approached the Top Court.It was urged by ASG Aishwarya Bhati and Senior Advocate AM Singhvi appearing for the State and informant respectively that the High Court has committed a grave/serious error in quashing the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The counsels also submitted that since the FIR's in both the cases were interconnected and could not be separated and that the High Court ought not to have set aside the criminal proceedings arising out of one FIR being Case Crime No.260 of 2018. It was further contended that without a further prayer and at the instance of the accused, the High Court has transferred the investigation to CBCID to investigate the FIR filed by the transporter (the accused themselves). It was further submitted by the appellant's counsel that in the present case the High Court delivered the judgment after a period of six months from the date it was reserved for judgment, therefore the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserved to be quashed and set aside.Appearing for the accused, Senior Advocate (s) Ranjit Kumar and Dushyant Dave while referring to the law laid down in Ch. Bhajan Lal vs. State of Haryana 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 submitted that High Court has not committed any error in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings.The bench to adjudicate on the issue, the bench relied on the ratio laid down in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 and Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and Ors. vs. HPA International and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 13.Perusing the impugned judgement, the bench while relying on catena of decisions said,"it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application...

Advisable That High Court Delivers Judgment Soon After Conclusion Of Arguments : Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Advisable That High Court Delivers Judgment Soon After Conclusion Of Arguments : Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers