| Case Name | M.S.Sheriff v/s State Of Madras |
| Citation | AIR 1954 SC 397 |
| Date Of Judgment | March 18, 1954 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Case Number | Case no. 281 of 1951 |
| Case Type | Criminal Case |
| Appellant | M.S Sheriff |
| Respondent | State Of Madras |
| Bench | Justice M.C. Mahajan, Justice B.K Mukhreja ,Justice S.R Das, Justice Vivian Bose and Justice Ghulam Hassan |
FACTS
Two people, Govindan and Damodaran, submitted petitions for release under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, claiming that two sub-inspectors of police, who are the appellants before us, had wrongfully imprisoned them. Govindan said that one Sub-Inspector was holding him, but Damodaran claimed that another Sub-Inspector was holding him. The petitioners, according to both Sub Inspectors, were not in their care. The first Sub-Inspector, who was worried about Govindan, claimed that he had never made an arrest or had Govindan in his custody. The other refuted claims that he was holding Damodaran. He acknowledged that he had once detained him but claimed that this was before the petition and that he had since been released. They all signed affidavits attesting to their return. The High Court instructed the District Judge to conduct an investigation due to the discrepancy between the two sets of statements.The District Judge reported that, in his view, the claims made by the two Sub-Inspectors were true after a significant amount of evidence was gathered and paperwork was submitted. The High Court disagreed and came to the judgement that the petitioners, not the Sub- Inspectors, were telling the truth after carefully examining the evidence. However, the petitioners were frequently detained following the filing of their petitions and prior to the High Court’s judgement; one was released on bail, while the other was remanded to jail custody by a Magistrate’s order. As a result, their applications were rejected for being infructuous. The petitioners then requested that the Sub-InsPectors be charged with perjury under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code by filing an application with the High Court pursuant to section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The requests were approved, and the High Court’s deputy registrar was instructed to file the required complaints. Following that, the Sub-Inspectors requested permission to appeal to this court. No appeal exists, thus permission was denied, but under article 132 it was granted because it concerned the interpretation of articles 134 (1) and 372 of the Constitution.
LEGAL ISSUES
Whether an appeal lies to this court under section 476B of the Criminal Procedure Code from an order of a Division Bench of a High Court directing the filing of a complaint for perjury?
ARGUMENTS
It was argued that since there isn’t a “ordinarily” existent right of appeal to this court and that the only rights that exist are those expressly granted by the Constitution within a very specific and constrained set of conditions, such appeals to this court cannot be deemed to exist “ordinarily.”Such a defence focuses on the word “usually” while ignoring the phrase “appealable decrees or sentences.” Before we can use the definition, we must first determine whether there is a group of judgements or sentences being considered by the court that are in any way subject to appeal. If not, the matter is resolved and section 476.B’s right of appeal is not available. If there are, we must determine which court those appeals “ordinarily” lie before proceeding.
JUDGMENT
As a result of the High Court records not being available, the two criminal proceedings have been closed, and the accused is free to file new complaints whenever the paperwork is ready, according to information we learned following the hearing on the appeal. The issue with regard to these prosecutions is moot at the moment because they are not ongoing, but it is clear that the accused will be humiliated if both the ongoing criminal case from which this appeal stems and the civil lawsuits are prosecuted concurrently. Therefore, we must decide which should be kept.We believe that the criminal cases should take precedence over the civil ones when comparing civil and criminal processes. The High Courts of India have differing viewpoints on this issue. However, we do not believe that the possibility of rulings in the civil and criminal courts that clash should be written out as a hard and fast rule. The law clearly forbids making a court’s decision binding or even relevant to another court, with the exception of a few specific circumstances, like sentencing or damages, indicating that it anticipates such a situation. The likelihood of shame is the only factor that matters in this situation.Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things glide till memories have grown too dim to trust. This,however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtained in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just.The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed but with no order about costs.
REFERENCES
https://www.scconline.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/500548/
This Article is Written by Khushaal Shukla of Vivekanada Institute Of Professional Studies
