Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that when a limited notice is issued by it in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, and the party approaching it is otherwise persuasive in assertion that the case does involve a substantial question of law deserving consideration, there is no reason why the case may not be heard on such or other points.

"Justice could be a real casualty if the same or the subsequent bench, in all situations of limited notice having been issued initially, 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," a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan said.

Favouring a pro-liberal and justice-oriented approach, the court said when a limited notice is issued by a bench on an appeal/petition, more often than not, the view taken is tentative.

"There could be occasions when the claim of the party succeeding before the court below is demonstrated to be untenable because of a 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," it said.

The bench also pointed out since exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary, notices on appeals or petitions are not frequently issued by this court.

"Nonetheless, if in a given case, notice is issued which is limited on terms but the party approaching the court is otherwise persuasive in pointing out that the case does involve a substantial question of law deserving consideration and the bench is so satisfied, we see no reason why the case may not be heard on such or other points," the bench said.

In such a case, the court emphasised, 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.

However, whether or not to exercise the power of enlarging the scope of the petition/appeal is essentially a matter in the realm of discretion of the bench and the discretion is available to be exercised when a satisfaction is reached that the justice of the case so demands, it said.

"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," the court stressed.

Referring to previous judgments, the bench said, the pro-liberal and justice-oriented approach of the court to secure the liberty of citizens cannot, therefore, go unnoticed.

The court dealt with this question after Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee invited the attention to a limited notice issued on an appeal filed by Biswajit Das against his conviction and sentence of three years in a corruption case.

The coordinate bench had on January 3, 214 issued a notice confined to the question as to whether the petitioner could have been convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and on the quantum of sentence for the other offences.

The appellant's counsel cited decisions of the Supreme Court in Taherakhatoon (D) by Lrs Vs Salambin Mohammad (1999), Yomeshbhai Pranshankar Bhatt Vs State of Gujarat (2011), Kutchi Lal Raeshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust Vs Collector, Haridwar (2017) and Indian Bank Vs Godhara Nagrik Coop Credit Society Ltd (2008) in his support.

The CBI, on the opposite, relied upon Spring Meadows Hospital Vs Harjol Ahluwalia (1998).

"Shifting views of this court, to an extent striking discordant notes, are discernible on bare reading of these decisions. A water-tight approach in Spring Meadows Hospital is followed by a guarded approach in Yomeshbhai Pranshankar Bhatt, bearing in mind Article 142 of the Constitution; and, ultimately, we find the liberal approach adopted in Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust, where this court had the guiding principle of rendering substantial justice foremost in its mind," the bench said.

While also, tracing the development of jurisprudence in criminal matters, the bench said, the recent decisions reveal a novel approach of sorts. Even after a convict’s challenge to his conviction and sentence failing, such a convict’s case may still be reopened upon a co-convict’s appeal, directed against the self-same judgment, succeeding and similar relief granted to the co convict being extended to the convict by even recording an order of acquittal, the bench said, citing Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs State of Gujarat (2023).

The bench thus heard the appellant's counsel on the merits of the appeal without allowing any technicality to stand in the way to satisfy its conscience that the limited notice issued by the coordinate bench does not result in any injustice being caused to the appellant.

In the case at hand, the court noted the appellant – a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India - 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.

After hearing his counsel in extenso, the court did not find any good reason or ground to hold that conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under the IPC was erroneously recorded by the trial court and was affirmed by the High Court, also erroneously.

"The trial court as well as the High Court was justified in returning a finding that the appellant was guilty of the offences for which he was charged, both under the IPC and the PC Act," the bench said.

Partially allowing the appeal, the court, however, altered his sentence to the period of 22 months out of 36 months of jail term awarded to him, as the incident related back to 2004 and the appellant had spent a little less than 2/3rd of the prison term.

Case Title: Biswajit Das Vs Central Bureau of Investigation