05 August 2024 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

On August 5, 2021 in the matter of Harsh Bhuwalka & Others v/s Sanjay Kumar Bajoria, the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dismissed a criminal revision petition (CRR No.507 of 2012) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners had challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the complainant should be allowed to present evidence before charges were framed. The petitioners subsequently sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court.

The special leave petition was filed on June 25, 2024, but it was delayed by 774 days. The petitioners requested condonation of this delay and also sought exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned order, citing that the certified copy was yet to be received.

On July 29, 2024, the Supreme Court examined the special leave petition and noted discrepancies in the petitioners' statements. The petitioners had claimed in their application (I.A. No.158707 of 2024) that they had applied for a certified copy of the impugned order but had not yet received it. However, an application filed on August 2, 2024, revealed that the request for a certified copy was made only after the special leave petition was filed. The Supreme Court found that the petitioners had provided incorrect, and arguably false, information.

Given the seriousness of the situation, the Court decided not to condone the delay or hear the special leave petition on its merits. All related applications, including those for condonation of delay and exemption from filing certified copies, were dismissed. The Court also refrained from initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioners, although the option remained open.

In addressing the issue of misleading statements and procedural lapses, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the frequent occurrence of such practices. It observed that many special leave petitions are accompanied by applications for exemption from filing certified copies of impugned judgments or orders, often without proper verification or documentation. This leniency has led to a pattern where certified copies are not obtained as required.

To address this issue, the Court decided to implement a new practice direction. Effective from August 20, 2024, any special leave petition, whether arising from civil or criminal proceedings, must include a receipt from the concerned high court acknowledging the application for the certified copy of the impugned judgment or order. The application for exemption must also include an averment that the application for a certified copy has not lapsed and an undertaking to submit the certified copy as soon as it is obtained.

This new practice direction aims to instill discipline and ensure compliance with procedural requirements, thereby preventing litigants from circumventing the rules and misleading the Court. The Secretary General of the Supreme Court has been directed to circulate this order to ensure that all concerned parties are informed. This development underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to upholding procedural integrity and ensuring that litigants adhere to established rules, thereby maintaining the credibility of the judicial process.