ition No 355 of 1979
Under Article 32 of the Constitution P R Mridul K Jayaram K Ram Kumar and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Petitioner
Soli J Sorabjee Solicitor General R N Sachthey E C Agarwala and Miss A Subhashini for Respondent No 1
The Judgment of V R Krishna Iyer section Murtaza Fazal Ali and D A Desai JJ was delivered by Krishna Iyer J and concurring opinion of R section Pathak and A D Koshal JJ was delivered by Pathak J KRISHNA IYER J Is it constitutionally valid or desirable on principle to permit a private citizen who has but loose nexus with the victim of a crime to invoke the special power under article 136 of the Constitution for leave to appeal against an acquittal of the alleged criminal thereby putting in peril his life or liberty in the absence of any legislative provision arming such officious outsider with the right to appeal This issue profound on its face but unsound on reflection falls for decision in this writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution
The facts compressed into a single sentence are that the peti 877 tioner was acquitted of a murder charge by the High Court in appeal but the brother of the deceased not the State nor even the first informant moved this Court under article 136 got leave and had his appeal heard which resulted in the petitioner accused being convicted and sentenced to the life term under section 302 IPC
The present contention urged to upset that conviction is that the leave to appeal and the subsequent proceedings were unconstitutional as violative of article 21 the procedural magna carta protective of life and liberty and therefore the sentence must fail
This plea faintly presented before this Court when the appeal was heard was briefly considered and rightly rejected
This second battle doomed to fail like the first demands of us a condensed ratiocination in negation of the contention hopefully urged by Sri Mridul counsel for the petitioner
Two inter laced issues arise and they turn on a the content and character of article 136 vis a vis article 21 and b the locus standi of a Good Samaritan if we may use that expression to refer to a public spirited citizen seeking to trigger the legal process to see that justice is done to his neighbour
Article 21 in its sublime brevity guardians human liberty by insisting on the prescription of procedure established by law not fiat as sine qua non for deprivation of personal freedom
And those procedures so established must be fair not fanciful nor formal nor flimsy as laid down in Maneka Gandhi s case
So it is axiomatic that our constitutional jurisprudence mandates the State not to deprive a person of his personal liberty without adherence to fair procedure laid down by law
The question is whether there is any procedure fair or otherwise which enables a kindly neighbour who is not a complainant or first informant to appeal to the Supreme Court against an allegedly erroneous acquittal by the High Court
The corpus juris contains no black letter law arming any such purely compassionate soul to approach this Court argues Sri Mridul and so his client s liberty has been deprived by a proceeding initiated by someone without any procedure established by law
We see the dexterity in the advocacy but reject its efficacy
Nor are we impressed with the submission that the brother of the deceased in the case or any other high minded citizen is an officious meddler who has no business nor grievance when the commission of grievous crime is going unpunished
There is a spiritual sensitivity for our criminal justice system which approves of the view that a wrong done to anyone is a wrong done to oneself although for pragmatic considerations the law leashes the right to initiate proceedings in some situations
Again justice is functionally outraged not only when an 878 innocent person is punished but also when a guilty criminal gets away with it stultifying the legal system
The deep concern of the law is to track down try and punish the culprit and if found not guilty to acquit the accused
It is imperative under article 21 that there should be some civilised procedure for holding a man guilty and depriving him of his liberty
Undoubtedly this Court if it grants leave under article 136 and eventually finds him guilty deprives him of his liberty and so the crucial question that falls for decision is as to whether there is any procedure as predicated by article 21 independent of or implicit in article 136
It is apparent that there is no statutory provision which creates a right of appeal in favour of a stranger enabling him to challenge an acquittal by the High Court
The Criminal Procedure Code does not create such a right of appeal and speaking generally a right of appeal is the creature of statute
So it is submitted that before the court may grant special leave under article 136 there must be an antecedent right of appeal absent which the question of leave by the court does not arise
The argument is ingenious but inference is fallacious
An insightful understanding of the sweep scope and character of article 136 will easily dispel the dichotomy between an antecedent right of appeal and a subsequent grant of leave which is the corner stone of the contention of the petitioner
The jural reach and plural range of the judicial process to remove injustice in a given society is a sure index of the versatile genius of law in action as a delivery system of social justice
By this standard our constitutional order vests in the summit court a jurisdiction to do justice at once omnipresent and omnipotent but controlled and guided by that refined yet flexible censor called judicial discretion
This nidus of power and process which master minds the broad observance throughout the Republic of justice according to law is article 136
Specificity being essential to legality let us see if the broad spectrum spread out of article 136 fills the bill from the point of view of procedure established by law
In express terms article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on a party as such but it confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases
The discretionary dimension is considerable but that relates to the power of the court
The question is whether it spells by implication a fair procedure as contemplated by article 21
In our view it does
Article 136 is a special jurisdiction
It is residuary power it is extra ordinary in its amplitude its limit when it chases injustice in the sky itself
This Court functionally fulfils itself by reaching out to injustice 879 wherever it is and this power is largely derived in the common run of cases from article 136
Is it merely a power in the Court to be exercised in any manner it fancies Is there no procedural limitation in the manner of exercise and the occasion for exercise  Is there no duty to Act fairly while hearing a case under article 136 either in the matter of grant of leave or after such grant in the final disposal of the appeal  We have hardly any doubt that there is a procedure necessarily implicit in the power vested in the summit court
It must be remembered that article 136 confers jurisdiction on the highest court
The founding fathers unarguably intended in the very terms of article 136 that it shall be exercised by the highest judges of the land with scrupulous adherence to judicial principles well established by precedents in our jurisprudence
Judicial discretion is canalised authority not arbitrary eccentricity
Cardozo with elegant accuracy has observed  The judge even when he is free is still not wholly free
He is not to innovate at pleasure
He is not a knighterrant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness
He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles
He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment to vague and unregulated benevolence
He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition methodized by analogy disciplined by system and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in the social life
Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains
 It is manifest that article 136 is of composite structure is power cum procedure power in that it vests jurisdiction in the Supreme Court and procedure in that it spells a mode of hearing
It obligates the exercise of judicial discretion and the mode of hearing so characteristic of the court process
In short there is an in built prescription of power and procedure in terms of article 136 which meets the demand of Art21
We may eye the issue slightly differently
If article 21 is telescoped into article 136 the conclusion follows that fair procedure is imprinted on the special leave that the court may grant or refuse
When a motion is made for leave to appeal against an acquittal this Court appreciates the gravity of the peril to personal liberty involved in that proceeding
It is fair to assume that while considering the petition under article 136 the court will pay attention to the question of liberty the person who seeks such leave from the court his motive and his locus standi and the weighty factors which persuade the court to grant special leave
When this conspectus of processual circumstances and 880 criteria play upon the jurisdiction of the court under article 136 it is reasonable to conclude that the desideratum of fair procedure implied in article 21 is adequately answered
Once we hold that article 136 is a composite provision which vests a wide jurisdiction and by the very fact of entrusting this unique jurisdiction in the Supreme Court postulates inarticulately though the methodology of exercising that power nothing more remains in the objection of the petitioner
It is open to the Court to grant special leave and the subsequent process of hearing are well established
Thus there is an integral provision of power cum procedure which answers with the desideratum of article 21 justifying deprivation of life and liberty
The wider the discretionary power the more sparing its exercise
Times out of number this Court has stressed that though parties promiscuously provoke  this jurisdiction the Court parsimoniously invokes the power
Moreover the Court may not save in special situations grant leave to one who is not eo nomine a party on the record
Thus procedural limitations exist and are governed by well worn rules of guidance
Sri Mridul urged that every inquisitive benefactor or offensive adventurer cannot rush in  and upset a verdict of acquittal by resort to article 136
This is really a matter for exercise of judicial discretion and the Court can be trusted to bear in mind time honoured practices and the values of article 21
But no dogmatic proscription of leave under article 136 to a non party applicant can be laid down inflexibly
For access to justice is not a cloistered virtue
It is true that the strictest vigilance over abuse of the process of the court especially at the expensively exalted level of the Supreme Court should be maintained and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted visa 
It is also true that in the criminal jurisdiction this strictness applies a fortiori since an adverse verdict from this Court may result in irretrievable injury to life or liberty
Having said this we must emphasise that we are living in times when many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievance when the State becomes the sole repository for initiation of criminal action
Sometimes pachydermic indifference of bureaucratic officials at other times politicisation of higher functionaries may result in refusal to take a case to this Court under article 136 even though the justice of the lis may well justify it
While the criminal law should not be used as a weapon in personal vendettas between private individuals as Lord Shawcross once wrote in the absence of an indepen 881 dent prosecution authority easily accessible to every citizen a wider connotation of the expression standing  is necessary for article 136 to further its mission
There are jurisdictions in which private individuals not the State alone may institute criminal proceedings
The Law Reform Commission Australia in its Discussion Paper No 4 on Access to Courts I Standing Public Interest Suits wrote The general rule at the present time is that anyone may commence proceedings and prosecute in the magistrate s court
The argument for retention of that right arises at either end of the spectrum the great cases and the frequent petty cases
The great cases are those touching government itself a Watergate or a Poulson
However independent they may legally be any public official police or prosecuting authority must be subject to some government supervision and be dependent on government funds its officers will inevitably have personal links with government
They will be part of the establishment
There may be cases where a decision not to prosecute a case having political ramifications will be seen rightly or wrongly as politically motivated
Accepting the possibility of occasional abuse the Commission sees merit in retaining some right of a citizen to ventilate such a matter in the courts
Even the English System as pointed by the Discussion paper permits a private citizen to file an indictment
In our view the narrow limits set in vintage English law into the concept of person aggrieved  and standing  needs liberalisation in our democratic situation
In Dabholkar s case this court imparted such a wider meaning
The American Supreme Court relaxed the restrictive attitude towards standing  in the famous case of Baker vs Carr
Lord Denning in the notable case of the Attorney General of the Gambia vs Pierra Sarr N  Jie spoke thus  the words person aggrieved  are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation
They do not include of course a mere busybody who is interfering in things which do not concern him Prof section A de Smith takes the same view  All developed legal systems have had to face the problem of adjusting conflicts between two aspects of the public 882 interest the desirability of encouraging individual citizens to participate actively in the enforcement of the law and the undesirability of encouraging the professional litigant and the meddlesome interloper to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts in matters that do not concern him
Prof HWR Wade strikes a similar note  In other words certiorari is not confined by a narrow conception of locus standi
It contains an element of the actio popularis
This is because it looks beyond the personal rights of the applicant it is designed to keep the machinery of justice in proper working order by preventing inferior tribunals and public authorities from abusing their powers
In Dabholkar s case one of us wrote in his separate opinion  The possible apprehension that widening legal standing with a public connotation may unloose a food of litigation which may overwhelm the judges is misplaced because public resort to court to suppress public mischief is a tribute to the justice system
This view is echoed by the Australian Law Reforms Commission
The crucial significance of access jurisprudence has been best expressed by Cappelletti The right of effective access to justice has emerged with the new social rights
Indeed it is of paramount importance among these new rights since clearly the enjoyment of traditional as well as new social rights presupposes mechanisms for their effective protection
Such protection moreover is best assured by a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system
Effective access to justice can thus be seen as the most basic requirement the most basic human right  of a system which purports to guarantee legal rights
We are thus satisfied that the bogey of busybodies blackmailing adversaries through frivolous invocation of Art136 is chimerical
Access to Justice to every bona fide seeker is a democratic dimension of remedial jurisprudence even as public interest litigation class action
883 pro bono proceedings are
We cannot dwell in the home of processual obsolescence when our Constitution highlights social justice as a goal
We hold that there is no merit in the contentions of the Writ petitioner and dismiss the petition
PATHAK J The High Court of Madras in its appellate jurisdiction acquitted the petitioner Sadhanantham of charges under section 302 and section 148 IPC Arunachalam a brother of the deceased petitioned to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution for special leave to appeal against the acquittal
The court granted special leave and ultimately allowed the appeal Arunachalam vs PSR Sadhanantham and setting aside the judgment of the High Court restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under section 302 IPC The petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that the judgment and order of this Court is a nullity and should be set aside
The principal contention is that Article 136 did not empower this Court to grant special leave to Arunachalam the third respondent and the grant of special leave by the Court and its entertaining the appeal violates Article 21 of the Constitution
The maintainability of the appeal on the ground that Arunachalam was not entitled to petition under Article 136 of the Constitution for special leave was challenged before the Bench hearing the appeal but the Bench over ruled the objection holding that it had ample power under Article 136 to entertain the special leave petition
The learned Judges laid down that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against judgments of acquittal by the High Court at the instance of private parties
We have read the judgment of our learned brother V R Krishna Iyer but because of the importance of the question we consider it necessary to set down our own view
The expense of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court flows from an entire code of provisions contained in the Constitution
It includes an appeal on certificate by the High Court under Article 132 that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution in a civil criminal or other proceeding disposed of by a judgment decree or final order of a High Court and an appeal on certificate under Article 133 that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance which calls for decision by the Supreme Court
In a criminal proceeding disposed of by a judgment or final order or sentence of a High Court besides cases where the High Court has convicted the accused and sentenced him to death either on reversing in appeal an order of acquittal by 884 the trial court or on the case being withdrawn from the subordinate court to itself for trial an appeal lies to the Supreme Court where the High Court certifies that the case is fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court
Article 135 confers jurisdiction and power on the Supreme Court with respect to any matter to which Article 133 or Article 134 does not apply if such jurisdiction and power were exercisable by the Federal Court immediately before the commencement of the constitution
Article 136 declares 136
1 Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter the Supreme Court may in its discretion grant special leave to appeal from any judgment decree determination sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India Then follow other provisions to which we need not refer
Plainly the jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 seeks to confer on this Court the widest conceivable range of judicial power making it perhaps among the most powerful courts in the world
The judicial power reaches out to every judgment decree determination sentence or order effecting the rights and obligations of persons in civil matters of life and liberty in criminal matters as well as matters touching the Revenues of the State
It is an attempt to ensure that the foundations of the Indian Republic which have been laid on the bed rock of justice are not undermined by injustice anywhere in the land Bharat Bank Ltd vs Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd
As the Court observed in Durga Shankar Mehta vs Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Others
Article 136 vests in the Supreme Court a plenary jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals by grant of special leave
Nonetheless there is a limitation which in our opinion is of immediate relevance
It is a limitation inbuilt into the jurisdiction of the Court and flows from the nature and character of the case intended to be brought before the Court
It is a limitation which requires compliance despite the apparent plenitude of power vested in the Court
When a petition is presented to the Court under Article 136 the Court will have due regard to the nature and character of the cause sought to be brought before it when entertaining and disposing of the petition
The question is Does the brother of a deceased person who has been murdered possess the right to petition under Article 136 of the 885 Constitution for special leave to appeal against an acquittal of the accused  It is a question which touches directly on the nature of a crime and of a criminal proceeding
Several different definitions of a crime have been attempted and there are some jurists who say that it is impossible of definition but there is broad agreement on one attribute of its nature that it is an illegal act which amounts to a wrong against the public welfare
Mogul Steamship Co vs Cm Greger Gew  Co As a concept crime has been defined as any conduct which a sufficiently powerful section of any given community feels to be destructive of its own interests as endangering its safety stability or comfort which it usually regards as especially heinous and seeks to repress with corresponding severity if possible it secured that the forces which the sovereign power in the State can command shall be utilised to prevent the mischief or to punish anyone who is guilty of it
 Crimes were defined by Blackstone as the breach and violation of public rights and duties which affect the whole community A crime therefore is an act deemed by law to be harmful to society in general even though its immediate victim is an individual
Murder injures primarily the particular victim but its blatant disregard of human life puts it beyond a matter of mere compensation between the murderer and the victim s family
Those who commit such acts are proceeded against by the State in order that if convicted they may be punished
The notion of crime as a threat to the whole community is the material counterpart of the formal rule that the State alone is master of a criminal prosecution
In a criminal proceeding the State stands forward as prosecutor on public grounds
No private person has a direct interest in a criminal proceeding although exception may be made by the statute in certain cases
It is common knowledge that a criminal prosecution is not intended for the private satisfaction of a personal vendetta or revenge
In India also the criminal law envisages the State as the prosecutor
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure the machinery of the 886 State is set in motion on information received by the police or on a complaint filed by a private person before a Magistrate
If the case proceeds to trial and the accused is acquitted the right to appeal against the acquittal is closely circumscribed
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1895 the State was entitled to appeal to the High Court and the complainant could do so only if granted special leave to appeal by the High Court
The right of appeal was not given to other interested persons
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 the right of appeal vested in the State has now been made subject to leave being granted to the State by the High Court
The complainant continues to be subject to the pre requisite condition that he must obtain special leave to appeal
The fetters so imposed on the right to appeal are prompted by the reluctance to expose a person who has been acquitted by a competent court of a criminal charge to the anxiety and tension of a further examination of the case even though it is held by a superior court
The Law Commission of India gave anxious thought to this matter and while noting that the Code recognised a few exceptions by way of permitting a person aggrieved to initiate proceedings in certain cases and permitting the complainant to appeal against an acquittal with special leave of the High Court expressed itself against the general desirability to encourage appeals against acquittal
It referred to the common law jurisprudence obtaining in England and other countries where a limited right of appeal against acquittal was vested in the State and where the emphasis rested on the need to decide a point of law of general importance in the interests of the general administration and proper development of the criminal law
But simultaneously the Law Commission also noted that if the right to appeal against acquittal was retained and extended to a complainant the law should logically cover also cases not instituted on complaint
It observed Extreme cases of manifest injustice where the Government fails to act and the party aggrieved has a strong feeling that the matter requires further consideration should not in our view be left to the mercy of the Government
To inspire and maintain confidence in the administration of justice that limited right of appeal with leave given to a private party should be retained and should embrace cases initiated on private complaint or otherwise at the instance of an aggrieved person
 887 However when the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 was enacted the statute as we have seen confined the right to appeal in the case of private parties to a complainant
This is as it were a material indication of the policy of the law
Having regard to the fundamental nature of a criminal proceeding to which reference has been made it is now appropriate to examine the considerations which the Court should keep in mind when entertaining a petition for special leave to appeal by a private party against an order of acquittal
From what has been said it is plain that access to the jurisdiction under Article 136 cannot be permitted to a private party who seeks to employ the judicial process for the satisfaction of private revenge or personal vendetta
Nor can it be permitted as an instrument of coercion where a civil action would lie
In every case the Court is bound to consider what is the interest which brings the petitioner to court and whether the interest of the public community will benefit by the grant of special leave In a jurisprudence which elevates the right to life and liberty to a fundamental priority it is incumbent upon the court to closely scrutinise the motives and urges of those who seek to employ its process against the life or liberty of another  In this enquiry the Court would perhaps prefer to be satisfied whether or not the State has good reason for not coming forward itself to petition for special leave
We think that the Court should entertain a special leave petition filed by a private party other than the complainant in those cases only where it is convinced that the public interest justifies an appeal against the acquittal and that the State has refrained from petitioning for special leave for reasons which do not bear on the public interest but are prompted by private influence want of bona fide and other extraneous considerations
We would restrict accordingly the right of a private party other than the complainant to petition for special leave against an order of acquittal
It is perhaps desirable to keep in mind that what follows from the grant of special leave is an appeal and the jurisdiction must therefore be invoked by a petitioner possessing a locus standi recognised in law
In regard to the question whether the procedure followed by this Court in disposing of a petition for special leave under Article 136 is consistent with the procedure contemplated by Article 21 we have no hesitation in holding that the principle is inbuilt within the terms of Article 136 itself that the Court in exercising its jurisdiction will do so as a court of law following the well known norms of procedure which have been recognised for long as governing and informing the 888 proceedings of all courts
We have no hesitation in holding that Article 21 is not violated
The petitioner has failed to establish that there is a case for interfering with the judgment of this Court allowing the appeal
The writ petition is dismissed but in the circumstances there is no order as to costs
NVK Petition dismissed


Summary:
The petitioner was acquitted by the High Court in appeal of charges under sections 302 and 148 IPC but the brother of the deceased not the State nor even the first informant petitioned this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution for special leave to appeal against acquittal got leave had his appeal heard which was ultimately allowed the court setting aside the judgment of the High Court and restoring the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under section 302 IPC Arunachalam vs section R Sadhananthan  The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution contending 1 that Article 136 did not empower the grant of special leave to the brother of the deceased and the grant of special leave by the Court and its entertaining the appeal violated Article 21 of the Constitution and 2 before the Court may grant special leave under Article 136 there must be an antecedent right of appeal absent which the question of leave by the Court does not arise
Dismissing the petition  HELD per Krishna Iyer Murtaza Fazal Ali and Desai JJ
Justice is functionally outraged not only when an innocent person is punished but also when a guilty criminal gets away with it stultifying the legal system
877H 878A 2
An insightful understanding of the sweep scope and character of article 136 will easily dispel the dichotomy between an antecedent right of appeal and a subsequent grant of leave
878D 3
The jural reach and plural range of the judicial process to remove injustice in a given society is a sure index of the versatile genius of law in action as a delivery system of social justice
Our constitutional order vests in the summit court a jurisdiction to do justice at once omnipresent and omnipotent but controlled and guided by that refined yet flexible censor called judicial discretion
This nidus of power and process which master minds the broad observance throughout the Republic of justice according to law is article 136
878E F 874 4
In express terms article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on a party as such but it confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases
Article 136 is a special jurisdiction
It is residuary power it is extra ordinary in its amplitude its limit when it chases injustice is the sky itself
This Court functionally fulfils itself by reaching out to injustice wherever it is and this power is largely derived in the common run of cases from article 136
878G H 879A 5
There is a procedure necessarily implicit in the power vested in the summit court
It must be remembered that article 136 confers jurisdiction on the highest court
The founding fathers unarguably intended in the very terms of article 136 that it shall be exercised by the highest judges of the land with scrupulous adherence to judicial principles well established by precedents in our jurisprudence
Judicial discretion is canalised authority not arbitrary eccentricity
879A C 6
It is manifest that article 136 is of composite structure is power cum procedure power in that it vests jurisdiction in the Supreme Court and procedure in that it spells a mode of hearing
It obligates the exercise of judicial discretion and the mode of hearing so characteristic of the court process
In short there is an in built prescription of power and procedure in terms of article 136 which meets the demand of article 21
879E F 7
If article 21 is telescoped into article 136 it follows that fair procedure is imprinted on the special leave that the court may grant or refuse
With a motion is made for leave to appeal against an acquittal this Court appreciates the gravity of the peril to personal liberty involved in that proceeding
While considering the petition under article 136 the court will pay attention to the question of liberty the person who seeks such leave from the court his motive and his locus standi and the weighty factors which persuade the court to grant special leave
879F G 8 The wider the discretionary power the more sparing its exercise
The Court may not save in special situations grant leave to one who is not eo nomine a party on the record
880C D 9
Sometimes indifference of bureaucratic officials at other times politicisation of higher functionaries may result in refusal to take a case to this Court under article 136 even though the justice of the lis may well justify it
In the absence of an independent prosecution authority easily accessible to every citizen a wider connotation of the expression standing  is necessary for article 136 to further its mission
There are jurisdictions in which private individuals not the State alone may institute criminal proceedings
880G H 881A 10
The narrow limits set into the concept of person aggrieved  and standing  needs liberalisation
881E Baker vs Carr   Attorney General of the Gambia vs Pierra Sarr N Jie  Bar Council of Maharashtra vs M V Dabholkar 1975 2 SCC 702 referred to
Per Pathak and Koshal JJ concurring
Article 136 seeks to confer on the Supreme Court the widest conceivable range of judicial power making it perhaps among the most powerful courts in the world
The judicial power reaches out to every judgment decree determi 875 nation sentence or order affecting the rights and obligations of persons in civil matters of life and liberty in criminal matters as well as matters touching the Revenues of the State
It is an attempt to ensure that the foundations of the Indian Republic which have been laid on the bed rock of justice are not undermined by justice anywhere in the land
884CE Bharat Bank Ltd vs Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd   474 Durga Shankar Mehta vs Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Others 1955 1 SCR 267 272 referred to
Article 136 vests in the Supreme Court a plenary jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals by grant of special leave
However a limitation is inbuilt into the jurisdiction of the Court and it flows from the nature and character of the case intended to be brought before the Court and it requires compliance despite the apparent plenitude of power vested in the Court
When a petition is presented to the Court under Article 136 the Court will have due regard to the nature and character of the cause sought to be brought before it when entertaining and disposing of the petition
884E G 3
A crime is an act deemed by law to be harmful to society in general even though its immediate victim is an individual
Murder injures primarily the particular victim but its blatant disregard of human life puts it beyond a matter of mere compensation between the murderer and the victim s family
Those who commit such acts are proceeded against by the State in order that if convicted they may be punished
No private person has a direct interest in a criminal proceeding although exception may be made by the Statute in certain cases
885C F Kenny s Outlines of Criminal Law 16th Edn p 2 para 3 Blackstones Commentaries III p 2 Mogul Steamship Co vs Mc Greger Gew  Co  referred to
The notion of crime as a threat to the whole community is the material counter part of the formal rule that the State alone is master of a criminal prosecution
In a criminal proceeding the State stands forward as prosecutor on public grounds
No private person has a direct interest in a criminal proceeding although exception may be made by the statute in certain cases
A criminal prosecution is not intended for the private satisfaction of a personal vendetta or revenge
In India the criminal law envisages the State as the prosecutor
885E F Salmond on Jurisprudence 12th Edn
p 92 para 14 and Current Legal Problems 1955 Glanville Williams The Definition of Crime p 107 at p 122 referred to
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 section 378 the right of appeal vested in the State has now been made subject to leave being granted to the State by the High Court
The complainant continues to be subject to the prerequisite condition that he must obtain special leave to appeal
The fetters so imposed on the right to appeal are prompted by the reluctance to expose a person who has been acquitted by a competent court of a criminal charge to the anxiety and tension of a further examination of the case even though it is held by a superior court
886B C 876 Law Commission of India 48th Report 1972 pp
17 21 referred to
What follows from the grant of special leave is an appeal and the jurisdiction must therefore be invoked by a petitioner possessing a locus standi recognised in law
887F G 7
Access to the jurisdiction under Article 136 cannot be permitted to a private party who seeks to employ the judicial process for the satisfaction of private revenge or personal vendetta
Nor can it be permitted as an instrument of coercion where a civil action would lie
In every case the Court is bound to consider what is the interest which brings the petitioner to court and whether the interest of the public community will benefit by the grant of special leave
887B C 8
The Court should entertain a special leave petition filed by a private party other than the complainant in those cases only where it is convinced that the public interest justifies an appeal against the acquittal and that the State has refrained from petitioning for special leave for reasons which do not bear on the public interest but are prompted by private influence want of bona fide and other extraneous considerations
887E F 9
The procedure followed by this Court in disposing of a petition under Article 136 is consistent with the procedure contemplated by Article 21 for the Court in exercising its jurisdiction will do so as a court of law following the well known norms of procedure which have been recognised for long as governing and informing the proceedings of all courts
Article 21 is therefore not violated
887G H 888A