KESHAV PRASAD SHARMAversusINDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.

                        [2011) 1 S.C.R. 838


A                  KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA
                                  V.                                   )..._   ...
               INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORS.
             (SLP (CRL.) NOS. 1646-1647 OF 2009)
                        JANUARY 25, 2011
B
    [MARKANDEY KATJU 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    y         ..
    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
    the High· Court against the petitioner - Merely because the
F
    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
    complete the trial uninfluenced by any observations made by
G   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;
H                               838
-         KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA v. INDIAN OIL
                 CORPORATION & ORS.
     Bho/u Ramvs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 140;
                                                                 839


                                                                         A
.~   Suman vs. State ofRajasthan and Anr. 2009 (13) SCALE 716
     - Referred to.
                          Case Law Refetrence:
         (2006) 1o 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              E
     Jain, Anuj Prakash, Abhishek Kaushik, Samir Ali Khan for the
     Respodents.

         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
    840      SUPREMt:·coURT REPORTS                   (2011] 1 S.C.R.


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.                                     ·

       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
            KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA v. INDIAN OIL                  841
                   CORPORATION & ORS.
    of the Constitution of India, when no prejudice has been caused    A
    to the petitioner.

          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.                              8
        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.
                                                                       c
        With these observatibns, the special leave petitions are
    dismissed.

    D.G .                     Special Leave Petitions dismissed.




•
.