Intra Court appeal in Criminal Matters

Source: Gauhati HIgh Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Gauhati High Court (HC) has ruled that there is no provision for an intra-court writ appeal to challenge an order or judgment issued by a Single Judge Bench while exercising criminal writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in the matter of Shri Deba Prasad Dutta v. The State of Assam and Anr.

What is the Background of the Shri Deba Prasad Dutta v. The State of Assam and Anr. Case?

• A First Information report (FIR) was filed against the appellant under Sections 431 and 294 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) read with Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
• A writ petition was filed by the appellant in the HC to quash the FIR and the charges framed against him by the Trial Court.
  • The said writ petition was dismissed by a single judge bench of the HC.
• Hence, this intra-Court writ appeal arises from an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court.
  • The HC rules do not explicitly address the permissibility of an intra-court appeal against an order in a criminal case issued by a Single Judge under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
• The appellant relied upon following cases while preferring the appeal:
  • State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Visan Kumar Shiv Charan Lal (2008): The issue in this case pertained to the validity of a Letters Patent Appeal submitted to the Division Bench challenging a decision made by the Single Judge during the exercise of writ jurisdiction. In this case, the Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition that had been filed against the Labor Court's award.
  • Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors (2003): The matter in this case revolved around the question, whether it was appropriate to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution challenging an interim injunction order issued pursuant to Order 39 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
  • Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2008): In this case, the SC held that the availability of alternative remedy of filing revision under Section 397 of CPC could not be a ground to dismiss an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). It was also stated by the court that even where revision application is barred, remedy under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would be available.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The division bench of Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kardak Ete found that these judgments did not pertain to the specific issue of the maintainability of an intra-court writ appeal in criminal matters.
• The HC held that we firmly believe that there is no provision for an intra-court writ appeal against an order or judgment made by the learned Single Bench when it exercises its jurisdiction in criminal writ cases under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
  • It was also held that, given the absence of explicit guidance on this matter in the Gauhati High Court Rules, it is essential to promptly rectify this discrepancy by amending the rules to explicitly state that no intra-court appeal is permissible against an order or judgment issued by the learned Single Bench in the context of criminal writ jurisdiction.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

Intra Court Appeal

• If an appeal has to be filed in the High Court against the order of a single judge, it is known as an intra-court appeal.
• The limitation period to file such an appeal is 30 days.

Constitution of India, 1950

• Article 226 mentions about the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts as:
  • Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs —

(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without—

(a) Furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and

(b) Giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.

• Case Laws:
  • Jagdish Prasad Shastri v. the State of Uttar Pradesh (1970): SC, in this case, held that if a writ petition involves an erroneous factual matrix and HC deems it inappropriate for resolution through a petition seeking a high prerogative writ under Article 226, it retains the authority to decline addressing such matters.
  • Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993): In this case, the role of Article 226 in securing justice and enforcing fundamental rights was reiterated and the importance of awarding compensation in cases of custodial deaths was emphasized upon.