KESHAV MOHAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under section 482, Cr. P.C., read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the F.I.R. in Moranhat P.S. Case No. 122 of 1990 (G.R. Case No. 926 of 1990) under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, for short, the TADA Act. The petitioners Sarvashri Keshav Mohan and Dilip Phukan have been in jail after they were arrested in connection with the F.I.R. case Girish Chandra V. Union of India, this court has held that in a case involving arrest of a person on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under the TADA Act, the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 482, Cr. P.C., for quashing the F.I.R. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for converting this application under section 482, Cr. P.C., to one under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Conversion may be made in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court. But the exercise of that power must be within clearly defined limits guided by rules of reason. In my judgment, the original proceeding and the converted proceeding must be of the same sort or type of legal proceeding, and the Court converting the proceeding must have the jurisdiction to hear the converted proceeding. Thus, a civil appeal can be converted to a civil revision or vice versa; but not a civil proceeding to a criminal proceeding. Let me now state the reasons. Civil appeal and revision are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure. In Shankar v. Krishnaji. A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1, the Supreme Court has held:

(3.) As regards the jurisdiction to hear the converted proceeding, if an appeal from an order arising out of a suit before the District Judge is later on found that a revision shall lie against that order, the District Judge cannot convert the appeal to revision and hear the same as he has no jurisdiction to hear revision under section 115, C.P.C. Let me take another instance. There are rules made by our. High Court for hearing of the appeal and revision. Under the Rules second appeal and revision are heard by a Single Bench irrespective of the value of the suit, and first appeal is heard either by a Single Bench or by a Division Bench depending upon the value of the suit out of which the appeal arises. If a. Single Bench converts a revision to a first appeal which can be heard by it, there will be no problem. But, if the Single Bench converts revision to first appeal which cannot be heard by a Single Bench, the appeal is to be placed before a Division Bench. The Division Bench is, while dealing with appeal, of the opinion that the conversion of the revision to appeal by the Single Bench is not right, then an anomaly shall arise.