KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.

[2011) 1 S.C.R. 838 A B ## KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA _V._ )..._ # INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS. (SLP (CRL.) NOS. 1646-1647 OF 2009) JANUARY 25, 2011 ## [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] - - _Constitution of India, 1950 Article 136 Application under s.319 Cr.P.C. to implead respondents no. 3 to 9 as co-_ c _accused in the trial of the petitioner- Trial Court allowed the_ - - _application High Court set aside the order of trial court_ - _Special leave petitions Plea of petitioner that question of prejudice is not relevant in proceedings uls.319_ - _Held: The question of prejudice in proceedings uls.319 may not be_ 0 _[relevant at the ][·stage ][of ][proceedings before the trial court ][u/ ] s.319 but it is certainly relevant to proceedings under Article_ - _136 which is discretionary jurisdiction Article 136 is not a_ - _regular form of appeal It is a residual provision which enables the Supreme court to interfere with any order of any_ E _[court ][or ][tribunal ][in ][its ][discretion ][and ][in ][exceptional ]_ - _circumstances It is not a regular forum of appeal like s. 100 or_ s. _96, CPC_ - _In the instant case, the impugned judgment of High Court did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner since no observation on the merjts of the case was made by[Merely because the ]_ F _[the High· Court against the petitioner ]_[-] _petitioner alleged that the respondent Nos. 3 to 9_ were _also guilty of the_ same _crime_ is _not relevant to interfere with the_ - _impugned judgment u/Article 136 when no prejudice had_ - been _caused to the petitioner Trial court directed to_ G _[complete the trial uninfluenced ]_ - _[by ][any observations made by ]_ - _the High Court Special_ /eave _petitions dismissed Code_ - - _of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s.319 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908_ - _ss. 96, 100._ _Lok Ram vs. Nihal Singh and Anr._ (2006) 10 SCC 192; 838 H ~ _y_ 839 - # KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA _v._ INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS. _Bho/u Ramvs. State of Punjab and Anr._ (2008) 9 SCC 140; . ~ _Suman vs. State ofRajasthan and Anr._ 2009 (13) SCALE 716 - Referred to. A > Case Law Refetrence: (2006) 1 o sec 192 Referred to Para 4 B (2008) 9 sec 140 Referred to Para 4 2009 (13) SCALE 716 Referred to Para 4 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Crl.} No. c 1646-1647 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 19.12.2008 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No 52791-M of 2007 and Crl. Rev. No. 71 of 2008. D Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Amit Bhandari, Ajay Veer Singh, Nitin Jain, Mohd. lrs.{lad Hanif for the Petitioner. _·Qr._ Rajiv Dhawan, R.S. Cheema, K.V. Viswanathan, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Kawaljit Kochar, Ashok K. Sharma, Kusurii Chaudhary, D.P. Singh, Tarannum Cheema, Sanjay Jain, Anuj Prakash, Abhishek Kaushik, Samir Ali Khan for the Respodents. E The following order of the Court was delivered F ## ORDER Heard leave counsel for the appearing parties. These special leave petitions have been filed against the impugned judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Gourt dated G 19.12.2008. It appears that in the trial of the petitioner an application was filed by the public prosecutor to implead respondents No. H SUPREMt:·coURT REPORTS (2011] 1 S.C.R. 840 A 3 to 9 herein as co-accused under Section 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 order of the High Court. We find that there is no observation made by the High 8 Court on the merits of the case which in any manner prejudice the trial of the petitioner. The learnel:I counsel for the petitioner has relied on the <lecisions of this Court in _Lok Ram Vs. Nihal Singh_ & _Anr.,_ (2006) 10 SCC 192, _Bholu Ram Vs. State of_ C _Punjab_ & _Anr.,_ (2008) 9 SCC 140 an"d _Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan_ & _Anr.,_ 2009 (13) SCALE 716. _I_ On the basis of these judgments the learned counsel _fqr_ the petitioner has submitted that the question of prejudice is not relevant in proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C. We are D of the opinion that it ma.y 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. E 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 F certainly rel~vant to proceedings in Article 136 of the Constitution of India. · E In the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner since no G 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 H 8 c # KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA _v._ INDIAN OIL 841 CORPORATION & ORS. of the Constitution of India, when no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. A 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 theJmpugned judgment expeditiously, preferably within six months from the da~e of production of a cqpy of th!s Order. With these observatibns, the special leave petitions are dismissed. D.G .. Special Leave Petitions dismissed. . •