REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

S.L.P. (CRL.) NOS. 1646-1647 OF 2009

KESHAV PRASAD SHARMA              Petitioner(s)

                VERSUS

INDIAN OIL CORP.& ORS.                       Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard leave counsel for the appearing parties.

These special leave petitions have been filed against  

the impugned judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court  

dated 19.12.2008.

It  appears  that  in  the  trial  of  the  petitioner  an  

application was filed by the public prosecutor to implead  

respondents No. 3 to 9 herein as co-accused under Article  

319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  That application was  

allowed by the trial court, but the High Court has set aside  

the said order.

We have carefully perused the impugned oder of the High  

Court. We find that there is no observation made by the High  

Court  on  the  merits  of  the  case  which  in  any  manner  

prejudice the trial of the petitioner.  The learned counsel  

for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of this Court  

in  Lok Ram  Vs.  Nihal Singh & Anr., (2006) 10 SCC 192,  

Bholu Ram  Vs.  State of Punjab & Anr.,  (2008) 9 SCC 140  

and Suman  Vs.  State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2009 (13) SCALE

716.   

On the basis of these judgments the learned counsel for  

the petitioner has submitted that the question of prejudice  

is not relevant in proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C.  

We are of the opinion that it may not be relevant at the  

stage of proceedings before the trial court under Section  

319  Cr.P.C.  but  it  is  certainly  relevant  to  proceedings  

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which is  

discretionary jurisdiction.

Article  136  of  the  Constitution  of  India  is  not  a  

regular form of appeal at all.  It is a residual provision  

which enables the Supreme Court to interfere with any order  

of  any  court  or  tribunal  in  its  discretion and  in  

exceptional circumstances.  It is not a regular forum of  

appeal like Section 100 or Section 96 of the Code of Civil  

Procedure. Hence, the question of prejudice is certainly  

relevant to proceedings in Article 136 of the Constitution  

of India.

In the present case, the impugned judgment of the High  

Court does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner since  

no observation on the merits of the case has been made by  

the High Court against the petitioner.  Merely because the  

petitioner alleged that the aforementioned respondent Nos. 3  

to 9 were also guilty of the same crime is not relevant for  

us to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court  

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, when no  

prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.  

The  State  has  not  filed  any  special  leave  petition  

before us and the position may have been different if a  

special leave petition had been filed by the State.

We  direct  the  trial  court  to  complete  the  trial  

uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court in  

the impugned judgment expeditiously, preferably within six  

months from the date of production of a copy of this Order.

With these observations, the special leave petitions  

are dismissed.

......................J.   (MARKANDEY KATJU)

......................J. (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 25, 2011.