Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. it is well settled that the definition of judgment in section 2(9) of c.p.c., is much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to clause (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - hooda, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has made strong reliance on the report submitted by the di-rector, horticulture department, in which it is categorically stated that if the packets of bio- fertiliser are available in regional bio-fertiliser, hisar, even then these can be purchased from any private firm.s.s. nijjar, j.1. on a specific query put by this court, mr. baljit singh, d.s.p., investigating officer, who is present in court, has stated that no further material is to be recovered or elicited from the petitioner at this stage. mr. hooda, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has made strong reliance on the report submitted by the di-rector, horticulture department, in which it is categorically stated that if the packets of bio- fertiliser are available in regional bio-fertiliser, hisar, even then these can be purchased from any private firm. thereafter, the director has given complete justification for making the purchase from the firm which is stated to have been favoured. apart from this, although the allegations in the fir are that there has been an embezzlement in the sum of rs. 35 lacs, but on mathematical calculation, it appears that only a sum of rs. 3,50,000/- has been embezzled. however, it is not necessary to go into the merits of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. the investigating officer is present in court who has already stated that nothing is to be recovered or elicited from the petitioner, at this stage.in view of the above, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any further. he is in custody since 17.10.2000. in my view, the respondents have had sufficient time to recover or elicit anything from the petitioner. even without the statement having been made by the investigating officer, i am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail.in view of the above, petitioner is allowed bait to the satisfaction of the c.j.m., panipat.copy dasti under the signatures of the special secretary of this court.2. petition allowed.