ARUP BHUYAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.P. Nos. 18711 and 18712/2012 have been filed in Criminal Appeal No. 1383/2007 and Crl. M.P. No. 18713/2012 has been filed in Criminal Appeal No. 889/2007. These applications have been filed by the Union of India. Review Petitions (Crl.) No. 426 and 417/2011 have been preferred in Crl.A. No. 889/2007 and Crl.A. No. 1383/2007 respectively by the State of Assam for review of the decision in the criminal appeals mentioned hereinabove. Initially the applications seeking permission to file an application for review by the Union of India were not registered on the ground that the Union of India was not a party to the criminal appeals. The said order was challenged in appeal i.e. Crl. M.P. No. 22124/2011 in Crl.A. No. 1383/2007 & Crl. M.P. No. 22122/2011 in Crl.A. No. 889/2007 wherein the learned Chamber Judge on 9/12/2011 had passed the following order.

(2.) On the basis of the aforesaid observation, the present applications for clarification along with applications for impleadment have been filed by the Union of India. The applications for impleadment have already been allowed in both the appeals. When these applications were listed on 2/5/2014, the following order came to be passed:

(3.) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, has submitted that in the case of Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2011 3 SCC 377, this Court has read down the provision to the detriment of the interest of the Union of India when it was not a party before it. He has also invited our attention to the decision in Sri Indra Das v. State of Assam, 2011 3 SCC 380. In Arup Bhuyan's case as well as in the case Sri Indra Das, the two-Judge Bench has referred to many authorities of Supreme Court of United States of America and thereafter quoted a passage from Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR(SC) 955 and relied on State of Kerala v. Raneef, 2011 1 SCC 784 and eventually opined thus: