Professional Documents
Culture Documents
R/SCR.A/5144/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHIT S VERMA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 3
MR UMESH A TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 3
MR VJ GHANGHOL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. BHADRISH S RAJU, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. PUNANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
Page 1 of 11
Page 1 of 11
HC-NIC
R/SCR.A/5144/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
CAV JUDGMENT
1.
2.1
the
complaint
after
recording
verification
of
the
Page 2 of 11
Page 2 of 11
HC-NIC
R/SCR.A/5144/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 3 of 11
Page 3 of 11
HC-NIC
R/SCR.A/5144/2014
2.4
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 4 of 11
Page 4 of 11
HC-NIC
R/SCR.A/5144/2014
3.
CAV JUDGMENT
Page 5 of 11
Page 5 of 11
HC-NIC
R/SCR.A/5144/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
HC-NIC
R/SCR.A/5144/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
in a
them
on
oath.
After
the
examination
of
the
However,
Page 7 of 11
Page 7 of 11
HC-NIC
R/SCR.A/5144/2014
10.
CAV JUDGMENT
12.
Page 8 of 11
Page 8 of 11
HC-NIC
R/SCR.A/5144/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
a Court
Page 9 of 11
Page 9 of 11
HC-NIC
R/SCR.A/5144/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
(1964 (1) Cri LJ 1) (See para 17). But, the Supreme Court in
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2432 :
(1978 Cri LJ 187) held that inherent powers of the High Court is
only protected and in the absence of a power under Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to Civil Courts, subordinate
criminal Courts have no inherent powers. Despite the decision
of the Supreme Court in the above case, divergent views are
expressed by certain High Courts regarding the powers of the
sub-ordinate criminal Courts in exercising inherent powers
without an enabling section like Section 482 (previous Section
561-A). But, it is settled law that such inherent powers cannot
be exercised by any criminal Court if there is an express or
implied bar in the Code of Criminal Procedure itself or in any
other Statute. The Supreme Court considered the matter with
regard to the power of review in criminal matters. Section 362
of the Code mandates that no Court, when it has signed its
judgment or final order disposing of a criminal case, shall alter
or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical
error. The Supreme Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan
Singh Bajwa, 2000 AIR SCW 3848 : (2001 Cri LJ 128) held that
even the High Court cannot invoke S. 561-A (present S. 482)
for exercise of inherent powers to correct a mistake which is
specifically prohibited by the Code.
16.
Page 10 of 11
Page 10 of 11
HC-NIC
R/SCR.A/5144/2014
17.
CAV JUDGMENT
had
already
taken
cognizance.
From
post-
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
Vahid
Page 11 of 11
Page 11 of 11