Case Note & Summary
The petitioners were accused in a criminal case under the Standard of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Rules made thereunder. The Magistrate had issued process against them, and instead of filing a revision before the Sessions Court, they directly approached the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition (Criminal W.P. No.1023 of 2005) seeking to quash the order issuing process on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The sole legal issue was whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition directly challenging the order of the Magistrate issuing process when an alternative remedy of revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure is available. The petitioners argued that revision is not an alternative or efficacious remedy, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Collector of Customs v. A.S. Bava and Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain, and that the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction even if revision is available, citing Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The court, however, followed its earlier decision in V.K. Jain v. Pratap Padode, which held that against an order issuing process, revision before the Sessions Court is an alternative and efficacious remedy. It distinguished the Supreme Court cases as dealing with different statutory contexts and not applicable to revision under the CrPC. The court noted that while writ jurisdiction can be exercised if the order is wholly without jurisdiction, the petitioners' ground of lack of jurisdiction could be effectively addressed by the revisional court. Moreover, the court took into account the enormous backlog of cases, particularly under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the rampant practice of litigants directly rushing to the High Court after issuance of process, leading to docket management problems. Exercising its discretion, the court declined to entertain the writ petition and disposed it of with liberty to the petitioners to file a revision application before the Sessions Court within four weeks. It directed that no precipitative steps be taken against the petitioners till then and left all questions open.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision Against Issuance of Process - Alternative Remedy - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 397(1) - Where an accused challenges an order of the Magistrate issuing process, the remedy of revision before the Sessions Court is an alternative and efficacious remedy, and the inherent powers of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC need not be invoked - Held that the petitioner should be relegated to the remedy of revision, as the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction can be effectively addressed by the revisional court (Paras 1-2, 5). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - When Available - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction in limited contingencies, such as where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or where vires of an Act is challenged; however, if the ground of lack of jurisdiction can be answered by the revisional court, the writ petition should not be entertained - Held that in the present case, no challenge to the validity of any Act was raised, and the plea of lack of jurisdiction could be decided by the revisional court; accordingly, the writ petition was declined (Paras 4-5). C) Administration of Justice - Docket Management - Discretion to Decline Writ Petitions - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482, Constitution of India Article 226 - Given the enormous number of pending cases relating to offences under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the tendency of litigants to directly file writ petitions or applications under Section 482 CrPC to challenge issuance of process, thereby avoiding the alternative remedy of revision, it is necessary as a matter of prudence for the High Court to exercise its discretion to decline entertaining such petitions, especially when the grounds can be effectively answered by the revisional court - Held that relegating the petitioners to revision will not only reduce the burden on the High Court but also provide a reasoned judgment from the Sessions Court for any further proceedings (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition directly challenging the order of the Magistrate issuing process when an alternative remedy of revision is available before the Sessions Court?
Final Decision
The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition and disposed it of with liberty to the petitioners to file a revision application before the Sessions Court within four weeks. It directed that no precipitative steps be taken against the petitioners till then. All questions were left open.
Law Points
- Revision is alternative and efficacious remedy
- Inherent power not to be used when revision available
- Writ jurisdiction limited if ground can be answered by revision
