Jasbir Singh @ Jassa v. State Of Punjab And Others

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH LPA No. 1397 of 2019 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 19. 08. 2019 Jasbi r Si ngh @ Jassa .... . Appel l ant ver sus St at e of Punj ab and ot her s . . . . . Respondent s CORAM: - HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI , JUDGE Pr esent :

Ms. Gur shar an Kaur Mann, Advocat e wi t h Shr i Yash S. Vi j ay, Advocat e f or t he appel l ant . .

KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE: ( Or al ) Thi s i nt r a- Cour t appeal under cl ause- X Let t er s Pat ent i s di r ect ed agai nst t he j udgment and or der dat ed 26. 07. 2019 passed by t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge di smi ssi ng t he wr i t pet i t i on f i l ed by t he appel l ant seeki ng a wr i t , or der or di r ect i on f or commut at i on of hi s deat h sent ence t o l i f e i mpr i sonment on t he gr ound of i nor di nat e del ay i n di sposal of mer cy pet i t i on.

Wr i t pet i t i on was f i l ed bef or e t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge seeki ng t he f ol l owi ng mai n r el i ef s: - " ( i ) A wr i t i n t he nat ur e of MANDAMUS or any ot her appr opr i at e wr i t , or der or di r ect i on, f or commut at i on deat h sent ence of t he pet i t i oner s t o l i f e i mpr i sonment .

- 2 - ( i i ) Wi t h f ur t her pr ayer t hat t he or der of r ej ect i on of t he mer cy pet i t i on by t he Gover nor dat ed

15. 01. 2015 and communi cat i on r ej ect i on mer cy Pet i t i on by t he Pr esi dent on 11. 08. 2016 be quashed and t he deat h sent ence be set asi de.

( i i i ) Wi t h f ur t her pr ayer t hat deat h war r ant s i ssued agai nst t he Pet i t i oner by t he Ld. Sessi ons Judge, Hoshi ar pur on

25. 09. 2016 be quashed and set asi de.

( i v) Wi t h f ur t her pr ayer t hat dur i ng pendency of t he wr i t pet i t i on, t he deat h war r ant s i ssued by t he l ear ned Sessi ons Judge, Hoshi ar pur ( Annexur e P- 1) may ki ndl y be st ayed.

( v) Wi t h f ur t her pr ayer t hat t hi s Hon' bl e Cour t may r est r ai n t he r espondent no. 1 t o 3 f r om execut i on of deat h sent ence of t he pet i t i oner dur i ng t he pendency of t he pr esent pet i t i on.

( vi ) Wi t h a f ur t her pr ayer t hat any ot her appr opr i at e wr i t , or der or di r ect i on as t hi s Hon' bl e Cour t may deem f i t and pr oper i n t he f act s and ci r cumst ances of t he case, may al so be i ssued. "

- 3 - The l ear ned si ngl e Judge, vi de t he j udgment and or der i mpugned i n t hi s appeal , di smi ssed t he wr i t pet i t i on. That i s how t he appel l ant i s bef or e us i n an i nt r a- Cour t appeal chal l engi ng sai d j udgment .

Quest i on mai nt ai nabi l i t y of t hi s i nt r a- Cour t appeal i s an i ssue i n vi ew of t he j udgment of t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t i n t he case of Ram Ki shan Fauj i Vs.

St at e of Har yana and ot her s, ( 2017) 5 SCC

533. I t i s per t i nent t o not i ce at t hi s st age t hat t wo Let t er s Pat ent Appeal s, namel y, t he pr esent one and LPA No. 1395 of 2019 t i t l ed as Vi kr am Si ngh @ Vi cky Wal i a vs. St at e of Punj ab and ot her s have been pr ef er r ed. However , i n LPA No. 1395 of 2019, l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant , when conf r ont ed wi t h t he j udgment of t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t i n Ram Ki shan Fauj i ( supr a) , conceded t hat i nt r a- Cour t appeal woul d not be mai nt ai nabl e.

However , l ear ned counsel appear i ng f or t he appel l ant i n t he appeal at hands ar gued t he quest i on of mai nt ai nabi l i t y of t hi s appeal on mer i t s.

I t i s submi t t ed t hat t he pr esent pr oceedi ngs ar e not i n cont i nuat i on of cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs agai nst appel l ant , but chal l enge has been made t o execut i ve or der s passed by t he Hon' bl e Gover nor and Hon' bl e Pr esi dent of I ndi a r ef usi ng t o exer ci se t hei r power s under Ar t i cl es 72 and 161 of t he Const i t ut i on of I ndi a f or commut i ng deat h sent ence.

Ther ef or e, i nt r a- Cour t appeal woul d wel l be mai nt ai nabl e and r at i o of t he j udgment of Hon' bl e Apex Cour t i n t he case of Ram Ki shan Fauj i ( supr a) has no appl i cat i on t o t he f act s of t he pr esent case. We have consi der ed t he ar gument s advanced by l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant . Ref er ence i n t hi s connect i on may be

- 4 - made t o t he r el i ef s cl ai med i n t he wr i t pet i t i on, quot ed her ei nabove. As i s evi dent f r om a per usal of t he same, most of t he r el i ef s ar e i n r espect of commut at i on of deat h sent ence t o l i f e i mpr i sonment or t o st ay t he deat h war r ant or t o r est r ai n t he r espondent s f r om execut i on of deat h sent ence awar ded t o t he appel l ant - pet i t i oner .

The i ssue wi t h r espect t o mai nt ai nabi l i t y of i nt r aCour t appeal s i n mat t er s ar i si ng out of cr i mi nal j ur i sdi ct i on exer ci sed by t he Si ngl e Bench of t he Hi gh Cour t st ands squar el y answer ed by t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t i n Ram Ki shan Fauj i ( supr a) . I n t he sai d case bef or e t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t , a wr i t pet i t i on was f i l ed bef or e t he Hi gh Cour t under Ar t i cl e Const i t ut i on I ndi a f or quashi ng r ecommendat i ons of Lokayukt a whi ch woul d have l ed t o l aunchi ng of cr i mi nal pr osecut i on.

I n pur suance t her eof , an FI R was r egi st er ed and cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on was i ni t i at ed.

The l ear ned Si ngl e Judge of t hi s Cour t anal ysed t he r epor t and t he ul t i mat e r ecommendat i on of t he st at ut or y aut hor i t y and t hought i t seeml y t o quash t he same and af t er quashi ng t he same, as he f ound t hat FI R had been r egi st er ed, he annul l ed t he FI R t r eat i ng t he same as a nat ur al consequence. The St at e went up i n Let t er s Pat ent Appeal . The Di vi si on Bench wi t hout i ssui ng not i ce t o t he r espondent s i n t he i nt r a cour t appeal , af t er condoni ng t he del ay i n f i l i ng t he appeal , st ayed t he oper at i on or der passed by l ear ned si ngl e Judge and, subsequent l y, an appl i cat i on made f or vacat i on of t he i nt er i m or der was di smi ssed and t he i nt er i m or der was made absol ut e. Af t er admi ssi on of appeal by t he LPA Bench, t he or der was put

- 5 - t o chal l enge bef or e t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t by t he pet i t i oner t her ei n.

One of t he pr i nci pal ar gument s advanced was t hat t he Let t er s Pat ent Appeal pr ef er r ed bef or e t he Di vi si on Bench was not mai nt ai nabl e, i nasmuch as, t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge had exer ci sed cr i mi nal j ur i sdi ct i on. The Hon' bl e Apex Cour t , af t er anal yzi ng t he r el evant l aw on t he subj ect as al so t he pr ovi si ons of t he Let t er s Pat ent , obser ved as under : - " On a pl ai n r eadi ng of t he af or esai d cl ause of t he Let t er s Pat ent , i t i s mani f est t hat no appeal l i es agai nst t he or der passed by t he Si ngl e Judge i n exer ci se of cr i mi nal j ur i sdi ct i on.

Thus, quest i on t hat i s r equi r ed t o be posed i s whet her t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge, i n t he obt ai ni ng f act ual mat r i x has exer ci sed cr i mi nal j ur i sdi ct i on or not . " On an anal ysi s of t he r el evant pr ovi si ons, t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t f ur t her obser ved t hat t he char act er of t he pr oceedi ng does not depend upon t he nat ur e of t he t r i bunal whi ch i s i nvest ed wi t h aut hor i t y t o gr ant r el i ef but upon t he nat ur e of t he r i ght vi ol at ed and t he appr opr i at e r el i ef whi ch may be cl ai med.

Vi ewed f r om t he af or esai d obser vat i ons, as not i ced above, mai n r el i ef cl ai m by pr esent appel l ant / pet i t i oner i s i n r espect of commut at i on of deat h sent ence t o l i f e i mpr i sonment . Thus, i t cannot be sai d by any st r et ch of i magi nat i on t hat t he r el i ef s cl ai med di d not t ouch upon t he cr i mi nal j ur i sdi ct i on of t hi s Cour t .

- 6 - Anot her ar gument advanced bef or e t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t was t hat a wr i t of cer t i or ar i can be i ssued on many a gr ound and when t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge has i ssued a wr i t of t he pr esent nat ur e i n quashi ng t he or der of t he Lokayukt a, i t has t o be t r eat ed as an or der under Ar t i cl e 226 of t he Const i t ut i on of I ndi a. That apar t , he ur ged t hat t he i ssue whet her i t woul d be under Ar t i cl e 226 or 227 i s t o be det er mi ned by t he Di vi si on Bench of t he Hi gh Cour t . The same ar gument t hat t he or der i s t o be t r eat ed as an or der passed under Ar t i cl e 226 of t he Const i t ut i on of I ndi a i s advanced bef or e us. However , t he sai d ar gument has been advanced onl y t o be r ej ect ed, as af t er consi der i ng same, t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t has hel d as under : - " The af or esai d ar gument suf f er s f r om a f undament al f al l acy.

I t i s because submi ssi on i s f ounded on t he pl i nt h of whet her t he wr i t j ur i sdi ct i on has been exer ci sed under Ar t i cl e 226 or 227 of t he Const i t ut i on. I t does not t ake not e nat ur e j ur i sdi ct i on and t he r el i ef sought . I f t he pr oceedi ng, nat ur e and r el i ef sought per t ai n t o anyt hi ng connect ed wi t h cr i mi nal j ur i sdi ct i on, i nt r a- cour t appeal woul d not l i e as t he same i s not pr ovi ded i n Cl ause 10 of t he Let t er s Pat ent . Needl ess t o emphasi se, i f an appeal i n cer t ai n j ur i sdi ct i ons i s not pr ovi ded f or , i t cannot be concei ved of . " The Hon' bl e Apex Cour t , i n par a- 57, r ef er r i ng t o t he j udgment s of t he Hi gh Cour t s of Guj ar at and Del hi and r el yi ng upon t he

- 7 - l aw l ai d down by t he Apex Cour t i n Commi ssi oner Of I ncome- Tax, vs I shwar l al Bhagwandas and ot her s, AI R 1818, has obser ved as under : - " 57.

Fr om af or esai d anal ysi s, i t i s demonst r abl e t hat t he Guj ar at Hi gh Cour t has opi ned t hat r el yi ng on t he aut hor i t y of t hi s Cour t i n I shwar l al Bhagwandas ( supr a) , t he i ssue whet her t he pr oceedi ngs ar e ci vi l or not woul d depend upon t he nat ur e of t he r i ght vi ol at ed and t he appr opr i at e r el i ef whi ch mi ght be cl ai med and not upon t he nat ur e of t he t r i bunal whi ch has been i nvest ed t o gr ant r el i ef . The Di vi si on Bench f ur t her opi ned t hat even i f cogni zance i s not t aken i n r espect of a cr i mi nal case, i t woul d not t ake out t he case f r om pur vi ew cr i mi nal j ur i sdi ct i on. Thus, i t has been hel d by t he Di vi si on Bench t hat when t her e i s a pr oceedi ng under Ar t i cl e 226 of t he Const i t ut i on ar i si ng f r om an or der made by a Cour t i n exer ci se of power under t he Code of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e, i t woul d be a cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng wi t hi n t he meani ng of Let t er s Pat ent . "

The Hon' bl e Apex Cour t has f ur t her obser ved i n t he par a- 65 as under : - " Thus, t he ef f or t of t he wr i t pet i t i oner was t o avoi d a cr i mi nal i nvest i gat i on and t he f i nal or der of t he wr i t cour t i s quashment of t he r egi st r at i on of FI R and t he subsequent

- 8 - i nvest i gat i on. I n such a si t uat i on, t o hol d t hat t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge, i n exer ci se of j ur i sdi ct i on under Ar t i cl e Const i t ut i on, has passed an or der i n a ci vi l pr oceedi ng as t he or der t hat was chal l enged was t hat of t he quasi - j udi ci al aut hor i t y, t hat i s, t he Lokayukt a, woul d be concept ual l y f al l aci ous. I t i s because what mat t er s i s t he nat ur e of t he pr oceedi ng, and t hat i s t he l i t mus t est . "

On an appl i cat i on of t he pr i nci pl es set out by t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t i n t he case of Ram Ki shan Fauj i ( supr a) , wher e t he mai n r el i ef cl ai med i n t he pet i t i on i s i n r espect of commut at i on of deat h sent ence t o l i f e i mpr i sonment , mer el y because or der s r ej ect i ng t he mer cy pet i t i on by t he Hon' bl e Gover nor and t he Hon' bl e Pr esi dent of I ndi a ar e al so under chal l enge, wi l l not conver t i t i nt o ci vi l pr oceedi ng, as i nvocat i on of j ur i sdi ct i on by t he appel l ant / pet i t i oner was t hat of cr i mi nal j ur i sdi ct i on of t hi s Cour t . I n vi ew of t he af or esai d f act s, di scussi on and t he l aw set t l ed by t he Hon' bl e Apex Cour t , t he pr esent Let t er s Pat ent Appeal i s hel d t o be non- mai nt ai nabl e and accor di ngl y st ands di smi ssed.

( KRI SHNA MURARI ) CHI EF JUSTI CE ( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE

19. 08. 2019 par kash NOTE:

Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES

- 9 -