C.B.I. AND ORS. versus KESHUB MAHINDRA ETC. ETC.

C.B.I. AND ORS. versus KESHUB MAHINDRA ETC. ETC.

The Supreme Court's 1996 judgment was based on materials available at the stage of framing charges and did not bar competent courts from exercising powers under Sections 323, 216, 386, 397, 399, 401 of the Code. The assumption that it fettered lower courts is incorrect; no grounds for recall under Rupa Ashok Hurra are made out; curative petitions are therefore dismissed.

Parties
Petitioner: Central Bureau of Investigation; Respondents: Keshub Mahindra & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Curative Petition (criminal) Nos. 39 42 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1672 75 of 1996 / Curative Petition Seeking Recall of Prior Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Curative petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Courts Under Code of Criminal Procedure, Scope of Appellate/revisional Powers, Curative Petitions, Framing of Charges, Bhopal Gas Tragedy Trial
Criminal Law Procedural Law Jurisdiction of Courts Under Code of Criminal Procedure Scope of Appellate/revisional Powers Curative Petitions Framing of Charges Bhopal Gas Tragedy Trial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Central Bureau of Investigation

Petitioner

Keshub Mahindra & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Curative Petition (criminal) Nos. 39 42 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1672 75 of 1996 / Curative Petition Seeking Recall of Prior Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court's 1996 judgment barred the Magistrate from exercising judicial powers under Section 323 CrPC
  2. 2 Whether the curative petitions fulfill the conditions laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra for recall of Supreme Court judgment
  3. 3 Whether curative petitions are maintainable after 14 years from the original judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court's 1996 judgment was based on materials available at the stage of framing charges and did not bar competent courts from exercising powers under Sections 323, 216, 386, 397, 399, 401 of the Code. The assumption that it fettered lower courts is incorrect; no grounds for recall under Rupa Ashok Hurra are made out; curative petitions are therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Curative petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Curative petitions dismissed
  • No expression of view or opinion on merits of matters pending before Sessions Judge, Bhopal