SUBRAMANIUM SETHURAMAN VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
| Case Name | Subramanium Sethuraman Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. |
| Equivalent Citation | (2004)13 SCC 324 |
| Date of Judgement | 17 September 2004 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case no. | Criminal Appeal No. 1253 of 2002 |
| Case Type | Criminal Appeal |
| Appellant | Subramanium Sethuraman |
| Respondent | State of Maharashtra & Anr. |
| Bench | (3 Judge Bench) N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha & Tarun Chatterjee |
| Referred | Regarding Discharge Proceedings in Summons Case of Company under Section 239 of CrPCRegarding Section 482 of Cr.P.CRegarding Section 362 of Cr.P.C |
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The Respondent had filed a case on the Appellants, the Company and its directors, for committing the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate initially.
- Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981: Dishonour of Cheques.
- Section 362 of CrPC,1973: Court not to modify its judgment in case if judgment is approved by signature or the case is being disposed by passing the final order, it can be done only in order to rectify clerical mistakes like typing errors which change the meaning of judgment etc.
- Section 482 of CrPC, 1973: Preserving the High Court’s inherent powers, no provision in CrPC shall restrict the High Court’s power of making necessary orders under the code or to stop the misuse of any court process or to meet the justice ultimately.
- Section 239 of CrPC, 1973: Accused discharge by the Magistrate in a warrant case.
- In response to the Complaint before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the 1st accused Company challenge it on the basis that the same magistrate did not notice the defective statutory notice, on this reason the company filed for its discharge, it was rejected by the Court
- Again, the second discharge application was filed by the company on the same reason, but this time the Magistrate allowed it citing K.M. Mathews V State of Kerala and Anr., where it was stated that it was in the Magistrate’s discretion to take note of and initiate the recall process in case where the summoned accused is able to prove that the issuance process of the statutory notice was not legally admissible.
- Dissatisfied with the discharge order grant to Appellants, the respondents challenged it in form of revision petition by saying that as per Section 362 of the CrPC, the Magistrate don’t have the authority to review its previous order of the Bar., the Sessions Court without giving attention to illegality of the statutory notice, agreed with the respondent’s point and allowed the revision petition.
- Further the Company challenged the Sessions Judge decision in form of a criminal writ petition as power derived from Article 227 of the Indian Constitution before the Bombay High Court, the High Court rejected the petition by saying that once the Magistrate records accused plea and if accused pleads not guilty, at that point of time the Magistrate must take into consideration all the evidence produced in prosecution support and also no provision is being present in CrPC which allows the Magistrate to recall the process and discharge the accused after the accused plea is recorded.
- Finally, One of the appellants, director of the company, filed a criminal appeal in Supreme Court for granting discharge petition in favour if company, taking into account the K.M. Mathew’s case.
ISSUES RAISED:
1. Whether the court can apply Section 239 of CrPC, which is for discharge of the accused in Warrant case for discharge of accused in Summons case?
2.What is the remedy available to the accused to seek discharge from proceedings in Summons case?
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:
- The Appellant argued in this case that the courts which have tried this case relied its decision on the judgment delivered in Adalat Prasad V Rooplal Jindal and Ors., in which the court decided on recalling proceedings for discharge with regards to Warrant case whereas the present case is regarding the recalling of discharge proceedings in Summons case.
- They also confronted that the High Court had committed a mistake as once the accused plea is recorded at the Trial Court, it has the jurisdiction to allow discharge application in a summons case on the reason that in the present case origin was based on the illegal statutory notice, so the trail court must not have taken cognizance of the offence, therefore it has the authority to recall the summons or allow the discharge application of the appellant, but the contrary has happened in this case.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
- The respondent argued that even though the courts depended on Adalat Prasad’s case decision, the courts had taken note of criminal courts powers to recall its previous orders in the case, which is being banned by Section 362 of the Code, also the Warrant case in Adalat Prasad’s case and Summons case in K.M. Mathew’s case don’t differ in any way.
- They argued that as the Code does not define power related to discharge stage, further as once the not guilty plea is being recorded, the appellant has to face the trial as provided in chapter 20 of the Code. He also articulated that the appellant used tactics to slow down the trial process even though the main issue being resolved previously.
JUDGMENT:
The court is of the judgment that the argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the court’s decision in the case of Adalat Prasad merits reconsideration cannot be adopted after taking into account the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is true that the case of Adalat Prasad involved a warrant, but the case of K.M. Mathew involved a summons. Although there are some differences between the two cases in this regard, this does not in any way imply that the rule established by this court in Adalat Prasad’s case is flawed.
In the case of K.M. Mathew, this Court decided that following a process issued under Section 204 by the competent Magistrate, the accused has the option to appear in court and demonstrate to the judge that there is no allegation in the complaint that the accused was involved in the conduct of the crime. This Court ruled that the Magistrate is free to recall the procedure that was issued against the accused in such a circumstance. This Court also took note of the absence of any such method for recalling the proceedings under the Code. however, held that no specific provision is necessary for such a judicial discretionary act, which supported its position.
The issuance of process under Section 204 is a preliminary step in the stage of trial that is foreseen in Chapter XX of the Code, according to the court’s ruling in Adalat Prasad’s case, which took into account the court’s opinion in K.M. Mathew’s case. Due to the fact that such a preliminary decision is an interlocutory order and that there is no provision in the code for the same Court to review an order, the Magistrate is not permitted to review or reconsider such an order. Therefore, in the absence of any specific clause to recall such order, the Magistrate is not permitted to reconsider his decision to issue the process.
According to that line of thinking, the court in Adalat Prasad’s case stated: “Hence, the the courtroom is of the opinion that the view of this court in K.M. Mathew’s case (supra), that no particular provision is required for recalling and issuance order involving to one without jurisdiction, does not laid down the correct law.”
It is evident from the foregoing that the bigger Bench of this Court in the matter of Adalat Prasad did not accept the accuracy of the law established by this Court in the case of K.M. Mathew. Thus, neither the claim that Adalat Prasad’s case needs to be reconsidered nor the reliance on K.M. Mathew’s case by the experienced attorney representing the appellant can be accepted.
The High Court’s conclusion that an accused person cannot seek a release after entering a plea in a summons case, which was the subject of the following challenge from the learned counsel for the appellant, cannot also be adopted. As opposed to Section 239, which allows for a discharge in a warrant case, Chapter XX of the Code governs cases involving summonses and does not consider a stage of discharge. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court was correct in its conclusion that the procedure contemplated in Chapter XX must be followed in order to bring the trial to a logical conclusion once the accused’s plea is recorded under Section 252 of the Code.[1]
The only remedy available to a dissatisfied accused for contesting an order in an interlocutory stage, as stated by us in the case of Adalat Prasad, is the extraordinary remedy available under Section 482 of the Code and not through the submission of an application to recall the summons or to seek discharge, as these actions are not allowed during the trial of a summons case.[2]
CONCLUSION:
The court’s authority for such recall of summons is attributed to the case in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala[3], but the summons issued used to be recalled by the same court on a plea made by the accused. Due to recent decisions by the Supreme Court, which are covered below, the accused is no longer permitted to recall the summons.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether recalling the summons under Section 203 CrPC was permissible in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal [4]and determined that it was not because the summons are only issued after determining that there is sufficient justification, and because of this, the Magistrate has passed the stage under Section 203. Due to the fact that the subordinate criminal courts lack the authority to examine previous orders or possess any inherent powers, the accused is therefore unable to request a review of the order issuing process and recalling the same under Section 204 CrPC.
The Supreme Court’s Adalat Prasad case ruling on the ratio seems overly technical and ignores practical considerations. Let’s look at an instance where a summons was issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and there was just one defendant who had never been given a notice requirement or had an account with the relevant bank. Consider another scenario in which he did not sign the claimed check and no transaction took place. In such a case, the court from whence the order of process was issued cannot provide the accused, who may have two options, with any relief due to factual errors. Either put up with the harassment until the trial is over, or submit a petition for a reversal in accordance with Section 482 of the Code.
In Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court had a further opportunity to take into account the reasoning in Adalat Prasad. In this ruling, the Court was made aware of the fact that the subject of its decision in the Adalat Prasad case was the warrant procedure. In the Adalat Prasad case, the Court also took into account the ban found in Section 362 of the Code. It is reassuring that Section 252 of the Code permits the recall of the summons prior to recording the accused’s plea, as it was decided in the Subramanium Sethuraman case. This would imply that the power to recall summons may be employed before the accused enters a plea during the initial interrogation pursuant to Section 251 of the Code.
Even though the accused informs the Court that the complaints are subject to dismissal at threshold, the Court must conduct the proceedings as a silent observer in order to remove the obstacles and put an end to the harassment of innocent people who have been charged in baseless prosecutions. In contrast to the former procedure of recalling the summons at the trial court, the accused may also approach the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, however this is a more difficult option.[5]
In order to prevent the hardship and harassment of innocent people who are charged as accused, the legislature should pass a suitable provision in Chapter XX of the Code (trial of summons cases), parallel to Section 239 and S. 245(2) applicable to warrant cases.[6]
[1] Editor_4 et al., Discharge of an accused in summons triable case SCC Blog (2021), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/03/13/discharge-of-accused/ (last visited May 5, 2023).
[2] (2004) 13 SCC 324
[3] 1992 AIR 2206 1991 SCR Supl.
[4] (2004) 7 SCC 338: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1927
[5] Advocatekhoj.com, Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra & ANR: Judgments: Supreme Court Judgments: September, 2004: Law library AdvocateKhoj, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=2004%2Fseptember%2F47.php (last visited May 5, 2023).
[6] Recall Of Summons In Summons Cases, (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) J-1
written by Ayyapa Reddy Gari Bhavana intern under legal vidhiya
0 Comments