KERALA STREEVEDI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed pro bono public seeking invocation of the powers of this Court under Article 228 of the Indian Constitution.

(2.) Article 228 of the Constitution is an express indication of conferment of extraordinary powers on the High Court to withdraw any case from any Court subordinate to it for adjudication involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. In our constitutional scheme, the power of judicial review is conferred on the Courts. Such power vested in the High Court is to the exclusion of any Court subordinate to it. It is so clear from Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 113 of the CPC reads as follows:

(3.) One Mrs. Nalini Netto, an Officer of I.A.S. rank in the State Government, had lodged a complaint on 9.2.2000 with the Director General of Police, alleging that the second respondent had, on 21.12.1999, outraged her modesty, an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Museum Police Station of Thiruvanamthapuram has taken it as a First Information Report and registered as Crime No. 47/2000. After filing of the charge sheet, the same was numbered as C.C. No. 2/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram. Prosecution evidence has been completed and so also the defence evidence. When the case was closed by the above Magistrate Court on 11.1.2005, in spite of the order passed by this Court on 14.12.2004 to wait for one month enabling the issuance of summons to defence witness Mr. Sheik Ahammed, the 2nd respondent had filed Crl. M.C. No. 177/2005 before this Court and a learned Single Judge, by his order dated 13.1.2005, set aside the order of the Court of Magistrate and directed him to wait till 25.1.2005 for the said witness to appear and depose and then hear the arguments on 28.1.2005 and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. Since the Presiding Officer of the Court of Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram was promoted to the cadre of Subordinate Judge/Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge and posted elsewhere in the said promotion post, the J.F.C.M.11, Thiruvananthapuram who was holding the full additional charge, was directed to dispose of the case as mentioned above. The witness did not turn up and the defence evidence was closed and arguments commenced and it is stated that the arguments will resume from today.