Professional Documents
Culture Documents
April 2009
Member-Secretary
Dr. Brahm A. Agrawal
Research Staff
Shri Sushil Kumar
Officer
Ms. Pawan Sharma
Shri J. T. Sulaxan Rao
Shri A. K. Upadhyay
Dr. V. K. Singh
Adviser
Dr. R. S. Shrinet
Joint
Secretary&
Law
Administrative Staff
Shri Sushil Kumar
Officer
Shri D. Choudhury
Shri S. K. Basu
Smt. Rajni Sharma
Joint
Secretary&
Law
: Under Secretary
: Section Officer
: Assistant Library &
Information Officer
Government of India
Law Commission of India
ILI
Building
(IInd
Floor)
Bhagwandas Road,
New Delhi 110 001
Tel. 91-11-23384475
Fax. 91-11
23383564
30th
Need
for
Speedy
Justice
Some
2.
(i)
In complaint cases also, appeal against an
order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate to the
Sessions Court be provided, of course, subject to
the grant of special leave by it.
(ii) Where the District Magistrate or the State
does not direct the Public Prosecutor to prefer
appeal against an order of acquittal, the aggrieved
person or the informant should have the right to
prefer appeal, though with the leave of the
Appellate Court.
(iii) There should be only one forum for filing
revisions against orders passed by Magistrates,
that is, the Sessions Court, instead of two
alternative forums as now provided.
(iv) The Legislature should specifically categorize
revisable orders, instead of leaving the matter to
confusion caused by various interpretations of the
expression interlocutory order.
3.
(Dr AR.
Lakshmanan)
Dr. H. R. Bhardwaj,
Union Minister for Law and Justice,
Government of India,
Shastri Bhawan,
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I.
INTRODUCTION
II.
PROVISIONS CONSIDERED
(a) Code of Civil Procedure 1908
Section 80 and Order V
10-16
RECOMMENDATIONS
16-20
20-21
22-23
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Courts and District Courts, has been a cause of great concern for
litigants as well as for the State.
citizen to get speedy justice and speedy trial which also is the
fundamental requirement of good judicial administration.
In this
Report, we have made few proposals which when given effect to, will
be helpful not only in providing speedy justice but also in controlling
frivolous, vexatious and luxurious litigations.
1.2
10
II.
PROVISIONS CONSIDERED
(a)
2.1
that the object underlying section 80 CPC is to ensure that before a suit is
instituted against the Government or a public officer, the Government or the
officer concerned is afforded an opportunity to scrutinise the claim in
respect of which the suit is proposed to be filed and if it be found to be a
just claim, to take immediate action and thereby avoid unnecessary litigation
and save public time and money by settling the claim without driving the
person, who has issued the notice, to institute the suit involving
considerable expenditure and delay. The relevant passages are extracted
below:
11
two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or
left at the office of(a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government,
except where it relates to a railway, a Secretary to that
Government;
(b) in the case of a suit against the Central Government
where it relates to railway, the General Manager of that
railway;
(bb) in the case of a suit against the Government of the
State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chief Secretary to that
Government or any other officer authorised by that
Government in this behalf;
(c) in the case of suit against any other State Government, a
Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district;
and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his
office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and
place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims;
and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has
been so delivered or left.
(2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the
Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu
and Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act
purporting to be done by such public officer in his official
capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without
serving any notice as required by sub-section (1); but the Court
shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise,
except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the
case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in
respect of the relief prayed for in the suit:
Provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after
hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be
13
2.4
15
16
2.5
similar provision can be introduced for all the other matters. When a
person has to file a civil case, he can be required to give two months
notice to the affected party.
In such cases,
when the notice and a copy of the petition is served, he shall not be
required to take fresh steps again through Court except for the
information of date of hearing that may be fixed by the Court. If this
is done, the Court will get the occasion to hear all the parties and will
be able to decide the case at the admission stage itself except where
the Court directs the parties to lead evidence.
Moreover, the
purpose, the Court can dispense with the notice and hear the plaintiff
or petitioner, giving reasons for urgency. If the urgency is not found,
17
(b)
2.8
2.9
18
said section.
If the
revisional Court finds that the accused has been wrongly acquitted, it
cannot convict him in view of sub-section (3) of section 401, but it
has to remand the case.
wastage of money and time. This provision also needs a change and
in such matters also, where the District Magistrate or the State does
not direct the Public Prosecutor to prefer appeal against an order of
acquittal, the aggrieved person or the informant should have the right
to prefer appeal, though with the leave of the Appellate Court.
This
19
2.12 Section 397 CrPC provides for calling for records to exercise
powers of revision and reads as under:
(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and
examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior
Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the
purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded
or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such
inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that
the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if
the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on
his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation.- All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial,
and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall
be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the
purposes of this sub-section and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall
not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in
any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any
person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no
further application by the same person shall be entertained by
the other of them.
20
This
21
and others to High Court and try their luck. There may be occasions
when one party may file revision in Sessions Court and the opposite
party in High Court against the same order. Such type of forumhunting should be immediately stopped.
forum for revision, that is, the Sessions Court against orders passed
by Magistrates. When there is only one forum for revisions against
orders passed by the Sessions Court, there is no necessity for
having two alternative forums for challenging an order passed by a
Magistrate. This will not only be less time-consuming, but will also
be less expensive for the litigants, and pendency in High Courts will
also be reduced.
but this has created confusion and litigants have to suffer for it.
Now, there is a need for specific categorization of revisable orders by
the Legislature and it should indicate the list in the Criminal
Procedure Code itself. This will reduce unnecessary litigation. The
residuary matters, if any, can be left to the judicial discretion of the
concerned courts.
(c) Transfer of Property Act 1882
2
See, for example, S. Kuppuswami Rao v. The King, AIR 1949 FC 1; Amar Nath v. State of Haryana,
(1977) 4 SCC 137; Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, [1978] 1 SCR 749; V. C. Shukla v. State
through C.B.I., AIR 1980 SC 962; K. K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 6 SCC 195; State v. N.M.T. Joy
Immaculate, (2004) 5 SCC 729
22
See, for example, Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal, 2009 (4) SCALE 60; Akula Madhava Rao v. P. Rukmini
Bai, 1995 (3) ALT 61; C. Abdul Shukoor Saheb v. Arji Papa Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1150
23
III.
RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1
carried out, not only litigants will get speedy and less expensive
justice but the pendency of the cases will be reduced and frivolous
litigation will be checked.
3.2
2.
24
(i)
25
We recommend accordingly.
(Dr Brahm A.
Member-Secretary
26