May 7, 2019:
Supreme has observed that if an application in criminal case is rejected for want of explanation for delay, the Court would not be barred under Section-362 CrPC to again consider the same.
A bench of Justice Mishra and Justice Sinha has passed the judgment in the case titled as STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs M. SUBRAHMANYAM on 07.05.2019.
In a corruption case, the CBI could not file authorization letter with the charge-sheet and therefore subsequently, they filed an application for bringing the same on record. The court rejected the same as the CBI could not give any satisfactory explanation. CBI again tried to bring the authorization on record by another application. This time the court applied Section 362 CrPC and rejected the application. Ultimately, the matter reached the Supreme Court.
It is in this context the Suprme Court observed "The truth and veracity of the authorisation order not being in issue, the failure to file it along with the chargesheet was anomission constituting a procedural lapse only. The rejection of the first application on 11.03.2008 not having been ordered on merits, but for failure to furnish a satisfactory explanation for the delay, Section 362 Cr.P.C has no relevance on facts. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there was no impediment in the appellant seeking to bring the same on record subsequently under Section 173(2)(5)(a) of the Code. The consequences of disallowing the procedural lapse were substantive in nature".
It also observed "The failure to bring the authorisation on record, as observed, was more a matter of procedure, which is but a handmaid of justice. Substantive justice must always prevail over procedural or technical justice".
The Supreme Court further observed "To hold that failure to explain delay in a procedural matter would operate as res judicata will be a travesty of justice considering that the present is a matter relating to corruption in public life by holder of a public post".
It quoted some observations from its earlier judgment as "There is major difference between substantive provisions defining crimes and providing punishment for the same and procedural enactment laying down the procedure of trial of such offences. Rules of procedure are handmaiden of justice and are meant to advance and not to obstruct the cause of justice. It is, therefore, permissible for the court to expand or enlarge the meanings of such provisions in order to elicit the truth and do justice with the parties".
Read the judgment here:
Picture Source :
