RAJESHWAR HIRAMAN MOHURLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT, 2007 (12) SCC 596, that "rule of precedent is an important aspect of legal certainty in the rule of law", is a principle of great significance in the system of administration of justice. One of the essential rudiments of law of precedent is consistency in the judicial decision making. The doctrine of precedent has been understood in two respects. Firstly, that the phrase means merely that precedents reported, may be cited, or may be followed by the Courts. Secondly, the strict meaning of the phrase is that precedent not only have great authority but must in certain circumstances be followed. By the development of law, the doctrine of precedent in India has been given strict meaning subject to its limitations and the law stated by the co-ordinate benches of the higher Court is expected to be followed with all its rigours but certainly subject to the rule of law and satisfying the principle of ratio decidendi. It is an accepted precept of administration of justice to follow this rule of precedent. Generally known exceptions to the rule of precedent are principles of ratio decidendi, sub-silentio and stare decisis. It is the ratio understood in its correct perspective that is made applicable to a subsequent case on strength of a binding precedent. Ratio decidendi is thus the reason for deciding as reasoning is the soul of decision making process. Every settled principle of law has to be rationally understood with reference to the facts of the case in which such principle of law is stated. In other words, facts make the law and this should always be kept in mind while applying the principles stated and reasoning in support thereof. A little difference in the facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. [u. P. SEB vs. Pooran chandra Pandey, 2007 (11) SCC 92] Ratio decidendi can act as the binding or authoritative precedent and reliance placed on mere general observations or casual expression of the Court is not of much avail. [girnar Traders vs. State of maharashtra, 2007 (7) SCC 555].

(2.) OCCASION may arise where earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench is not in conformity with law or has ignored statutory provisions and or the law declared by the Supreme Court which is binding in terms of Article 141 of the constitution of India and thus may not be a binding precedent for the reason it being per incuriam or hit by principle of stare decisis. Therefore, a subsequent co-ordinate Bench may differ by following the judgment of the higher Court or for specific reasons of ensuring certainty and consistency in law and keeping in view the narrated facts of a given case. With reference to the principle of ratio decidendi the Court may choose to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Despite judicial discipline and propriety, wide discretion is vested in the Court dealing with such matters to adopt different course of actions but in conformity with the settled canons of doctrine of precedent.

(3.) THE Division Bench of this Court faced with somewhat similar situation preferred to adopt the latter course of action and chose to refer the matter to a larger Bench. The question primarily arose was "whether Police Patil appointed under Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 is a 'police Officer' for the purpose of section 25 of the Evidence Act ?" and finding it difficult to follow the view expressed by other Division Benches of this Court, the Bench presided over by one of us (A. P. Lavande, J.) dealing with the case in hand vide Order dated 15th april 2008 required that the above question of law should he authoritatively answered and settled and, therefore, referred the matter to a larger Bench. The order of Reference reads as under:-