Keshav Prasad Sharma vs Indian Oil Corp.& Ors

KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

INDIAN OIL CORP.& ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard leave counsel for the appearing parties.

These special leave petitions have been filed against

the impugned judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court

dated 19.12.2008.

It appears that in the trial of the petitioner an

application was filed by the public prosecutor to implead

respondents No. 3 to 9 herein as co-accused under Article

319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That application was

allowed by the trial court, but the High Court has set aside

the said order.

We have carefully perused the impugned oder of the High

Court. We find that there is no observation made by the High

Court on the merits of the case which in any manner

prejudice the trial of the petitioner. The learned counsel

for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of this Court

in Lok Ram Vs. Nihal Singh & Anr., (2006) 10 SCC 192,

Bholu Ram Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 140

and Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2009 (13) SCALE

716.

On the basis of these judgments the learned counsel for

the petitioner has submitted that the question of prejudice

is not relevant in proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

We are of the opinion that it may not be relevant at the

stage of proceedings before the trial court under Section

319 Cr.P.C. but it is certainly relevant to proceedings

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which is

discretionary jurisdiction.

Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not a

regular form of appeal at all. It is a residual provision

which enables the Supreme Court to interfere with any order

of any court or tribunal in its discretion and in

exceptional circumstances. It is not a regular forum of

appeal like Section 100 or Section 96 of the Code of Civil

Procedure. Hence, the question of prejudice is certainly

relevant to proceedings in Article 136 of the Constitution

of India.

In the present case, the impugned judgment of the High

Court does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner since

no observation on the merits of the case has been made by

the High Court against the petitioner. Merely because the

petitioner alleged that the aforementioned respondent Nos. 3

to 9 were also guilty of the same crime is not relevant for

us to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, when no

prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The State has not filed any special leave petition

before us and the position may have been different if a

special leave petition had been filed by the State.

We direct the trial court to complete the trial

uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court in

the impugned judgment expeditiously, preferably within six

months from the date of production of a copy of this Order.

With these observations, the special leave petitions

are dismissed.

......................J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

......................J. (GYAN SUDHA MISRA) NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 25, 2011.