FARUK ALIAS GAFFAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this Court while allowing the Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2008 and connected criminal appeal vide judgment and order dated 24.7.2012 framed following issue for determination :

(2.) On the larger plain, it has been submitted by all the learned Senior Counsels that the High Court is the highest Court of justice at the State level. It has been conferred revisional powers under Sections 397 and Section 401 Cr.P.C. and inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for doing complete justice, and to pass such orders as may be warranted in the facts of the case for securing the ends of justice. All forms of judicial injustice can be impinged upon by the High Court, if it is, so required even suo motu to hold otherwise would be bad for the criminal justice system.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate Sri Akhilesh Singh appearing for the State of U.P. has fairly stated before the Court that it cannot, be disputed, as a proposition of law, that in exercise of revisional powers as provided under Section 401 Cr.P.C. and under inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court can suo motu in its discretion pass such orders to do substantial justice or to meet the ends of justice as may be warranted in the facts of the case. It can extend the benefit of its judgment to a non appealing accused when it has come to a conclusion that the conviction and sentence of the appealing accused has been found to be contrary to law and has set aside the same and that the evidence against the non-; appealing convicts is even weaker. He further urged that the legal pronouncements of the Apex Court and various High Courts cited at bar lead to the same conclusion.