Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
2. Section 2(c) defines “public servant”. The definition is extremely wide and includes within its ken even arbitrators or other persons to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by a court of justice or by a competent public authority – (See Section 2(c)(vi)). Also included are office bearers of registered co- operative societies engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, who receive financial aid from the Government – (See Section 2(c)(ix)). Office bearers or employees of educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institutions in whatever manner established, receiving financial assistance from the Government or local or other public authorities are also included (see Section 2(c)(xii)). The two explanations to Section 2(c) are also revealing – whereas Explanation 1 states that in order to be a public servant, one need not be appointed by Government, Explanation 2 refers to a de facto, as opposed to a de jure, public servant, discounting whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that “situation”.
3. Section 4(4) is of great importance in deciding these appeals, and is set out hereinbelow: “4. Cases triable by special Judges.— (1) – (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a special Judge shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis.” Section 22 applies the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, subject to modifications which ensure timely disposal of cases, under this special Act. Section 22 reads as under: “22. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply subject to certain modifications.— The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, shall in their application to any proceeding in relation to an offence punishable under this Act have effect as if,— (a) in sub-section (1) of Section 243, for the words “The accused shall then be called upon,” the words “The accused shall then be required to give in writing at once or within such time as the court may allow, a list of the persons (if any) whom he proposes to examine as his witnesses and of the documents (if any) on which he proposes to rely and he shall then be called upon” had been substituted; ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY v. C. B. I. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] (b) in sub-section (2) of Section 309, after the third proviso, the following proviso had been inserted, namely: — “Provided also that the proceeding shall not be adjourned or postponed merely on the ground that an application under Section 397 has been made by a party to the proceeding.”; (c) after sub-section (2) of Section 317, the following sub-section had been inserted, namely:— “(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Judge may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, proceed with inquiry or trial in the absence of the accused or his pleader and record the evidence of any witness subject to the right of the accused to recall the witness for cross-examination.”; (d) in sub-section (1) of Section 397, before the Explanation, the following proviso had been inserted, namely:— “Provided that where the powers under this section are exercised by a court on an application made by a party to such proceedings, the court shall not ordinarily call for the record of the proceedings— (a) without giving the other party an opportunity of showing cause why the record should not be called for; or (b) if it is satisfied that an examination of the record of the proceedings may be made from the certified copies.” Under Section 27, powers of appeal and revision, conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, are to be exercised “subject to the provisions of this Act”. Section 27 reads as follows: “27. Appeal and revision.— Subject to the provisions of this Act, the High Court may exercise, so far as they may be applicable, all the powers of appeal and revision conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on a High court as if the Court of the special Judge were a Court of Session trying 12 cases within the local limits of the High Court.”
4. The bone of contention in these appeals is the true interpretation of Section 19(3)(c) of the Act, and whether superior constitutional courts, namely, the High Courts in this country, are bound to follow Section 19(3)(c) in petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. An allied question is whether the inherent powers of High Courts are available to stay proceedings under the Act under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 19 reads as follows: “19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.— (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013] — (a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any 9 other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission, irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has, in fact, been occasioned thereby; ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY v. C. B. I. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] (b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation. — For the purposes of this section, — (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.”
5. On a reference made to a 2-Judge Bench in the Delhi High Court, the learned Chief Justice framed, what he described as, “three facets which emanate for consideration”, as follows: “(a) Whether an order framing charge under the 1988 Act would be treated as an interlocutory order thereby barring the exercise of revisional power of this Court? (b) Whether the language employed in Section 19 of the 1988 Act which bars the revision would also bar the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for all purposes? (c) Whether the order framing charge can be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?” Answers given to the “three facets” are in paragraph 33 as follows: “33. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we proceed to answer the reference on following terms: (a) An order framing charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order. (b) As Section 19(3)(c) clearly bars revision against an interlocutory order and framing of charge being an interlocutory order a revision will not be maintainable. (c) A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are maintainable. (d) Even if a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is entertained by the High Court under no circumstances an order of stay should be passed regard being had to the prohibition contained in Section 19(3)(c) of the 1988 Act. (e) The exercise of power either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly and in exceptional circumstances be exercised keeping in view the law laid down in Siya Ram Singh (supra), Vishesh Kumar (supra), Khalil Ahmed Bashir Ahmed (supra), Kamal Nath & Others (supra) Ranjeet Singh (supra) and similar line of decisions in the field. (f) It is settled law that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised as a “cloak of an appeal in disguise” or to re- appreciate evidence. The aforesaid proceedings should be used sparingly with great care, caution, circumspection and only to prevent grave miscarriage of justice.”
6. The arguments on both sides have been set out in the judgment of brother Goel, J. and need not be reiterated.
7. A perusal of Section 19(3) of the Act would show that the interdict against stay of proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority is lifted if the Court is satisfied that the error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice. Having said this in clause (b) of Section 19(3), clause (c) says that no Court shall stay proceedings under this Act on any other ground. The contention on behalf of the Appellants before us is that the expression “on any other ground” is referable only ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY v. C. B. I. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] to grounds which relate to sanction and not generally to all proceedings under the Act. Whereas learned counsel for the Respondents argues that these are grounds referable to the proceedings under this Act and there is no warrant to add words not found in sub-section (c), namely, that these grounds should be relatable to sanction only.
8. We are of the view that the Respondents are correct in this submission for the following reasons: (i) Section 19(3)(b) subsumes all grounds which are relatable to sanction granted. This is clear from the word “any” making it clear that whatever be the error, omission or irregularity in sanction granted, all grounds relatable thereto are covered. (ii) This is further made clear by Explanation (a), which defines an “error” as including competency of the authority to grant sanction. (iii) The words “in the sanction granted by the authority” contained in sub-clause (b) are conspicuous by their absence in sub-clause(c), showing thereby that it is the proceedings under the Act that are referred to. (iv) The expression “on any other ground”, therefore, refers to and relates to all grounds that are available in proceedings under the Act other than grounds which relate to sanction granted by the authority. (v) On the assumption that there is an ambiguity, and that there are two views possible, the view which most accords with the object of the Act, and which makes the Act workable, must necessarily be the controlling view. It is settled law that even penal statutes are governed not only by their literal language, but also by the object sought to be achieved by Parliament. (See Ms. Eera through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr., 2017 SCC Online SC 787 at paragraphs 134-140). (vi) In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 at 558, this Court held, “It has been pointed out repeatedly, vide for example, The River Wear Commissioners v. William Adamson (1876-77) 2 AC 743 and R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628, that although the words occurring in a particular statute are plain and unambiguous, they have to be interpreted in a manner which would fit in the context of the other provisions of the statute and bring about the real intention of the Legislature”. As the Statement of Objects and Reasons extracted hereinabove makes it clear, Section 19(3)(c) is to be read with Section 4(4) and Section 22, all of which make it clear that cases under the Act have to be decided with utmost despatch and without any glitches on the way in the form of interlocutory stay orders.1 (vii) It has been argued on behalf of the Appellants that sub- section (4) of Section 19 would make it clear that the subject matter of Section 19, including sub-section (3), is sanction and sanction alone. This argument is fallacious for the simple reason that the subject matter of sub-section (4) is only in the nature of a proviso to Section 19(3)(a) and (b), making 1 Under Section 22(a), Section 243(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is tightened up by requiring the accused to give in writing, at once or within such time as the Court may allow, a list of persons whom he proposes to examine as witnesses and documents on which he proposes to rely, so as to continue with the trial with utmost despatch. Similarly, in sub-clause (b) of Section 22, under Section 309 a fourth proviso is inserted ensuring that there shall be no adjournment merely on the ground that an application under Section 397 has been made by a party to the proceedings. Under sub-clause (c) of Section 22, a Judge may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 317(1) and (2), if he thinks fit and for good reason, proceed with the enquiry or trial in the absence of the accused or his pleader and record the evidence of any witness, subject to the right of the accused to recall the witness for cross-examination. This again can be done so that there is no delay in either the enquiry or trial proceedings under the Act. Insofar as sub-clause (d) is concerned, this Court in Girish Kumar Suneja v. C.B.I., (2017) 14 SCC 809 at 847 has held: “By adding the proviso to Section 397(1) CrPC, Parliament has made it clear that it would be appropriate not to call for the records of the case before the Special Judge even when the High Court exercises its revision jurisdiction. The reason for this quite clearly is that once the records are called for, the Special Judge cannot proceed with the trial. With a view to ensure that the accused who has invoked the revision jurisdiction of the High Court is not prejudiced and at the same time the trial is not indirectly stayed or otherwise impeded, Parliament has made it clear that the examination of the record of the Special Judge may also be made on the basis of certified copies of the record. Quite clearly, the intention of Parliament is that there should not be any impediment in the trial of a case under the PC Act.” ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY v. C. B. I. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] it clear that the ground for stay qua sanction having occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice should be taken at the earliest, and if not so taken, would be rejected on this ground alone. (viii) Section 19(3)(c) became necessary to make it clear that proceedings under the Act can be stayed only in the eventuality of an error, omission or irregularity in sanction granted, resulting in failure of justice, and for no other reason. It was for this reason that it was also necessary to reiterate in the language of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that in all cases, other than those covered by Section 19(3)(b), no court shall exercise the power of revision in relation to interlocutory orders that may be passed. It is also significant to note that the reach of this part of Section 19(3)(c) is at every stage of the proceeding, that is inquiry, trial, appeal or otherwise, making it clear that, in consonance with the object sought to be achieved, prevention of corruption trials are not only to be heard by courts other than ordinary courts, but disposed of as expeditiously as possible, as otherwise corrupt public servants would continue to remain in office and be cancerous to society at large, eating away at the fabric of the nation.
9. The question as to whether the inherent power of a High Court would be available to stay a trial under the Act necessarily leads us to an inquiry as to whether such inherent power sounds in constitutional, as opposed to statutory law. First and foremost, it must be appreciated that the High Courts are established by the Constitution and are courts of record which will have all powers of such courts, including the power to punish contempt of themselves (See Article 215). The High Court, being a superior court of record, is entitled to consider questions regarding its own jurisdiction when raised before it. In an instructive passage by a Constitution Bench of this Court in In re Special Reference 1 of 1964, (1965) 1 SCR 413 at 499, Gajendragadkar, C.J. held: “Besides, in the case of a superior Court of Record, it is for the court to consider whether any matter falls within its jurisdiction or not. Unlike a Court of limited jurisdiction, the superior Court is entitled to determine for itself questions about its own jurisdiction. “Prima facie”, says Halsbury, “no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular court” [Halsbury’s Law of England, Vol. 9, p. 349].”
10. Also, in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. Assistant Collector of Customs, 1967 SCR (3) 926 at 930-931, this Court had occasion to deal with the inherent power of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which is equivalent to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was held that the said Section did not confer any power, but only declared that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the existing inherent powers of the High Court. The Court then went on to hold: “The proviso to the article is not material and need not be read. The article enacts that the jurisdiction of the existing High Courts and the powers of the judges thereof in relation to administration of justice “shall be” the same as immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. The Constitution confirmed and re-vested in the High Court all its existing powers and jurisdiction including its inherent powers, and its power to make rules. When the Constitution or any enacted law has embraced and confirmed the inherent powers and jurisdiction of the High Court which previously existed, that power and jurisdiction has the sanction of an enacted “law” within the meaning of Art. 21 as explained in A. K. Gopalan’s case (1950 SCR 88). The inherent powers of the High Court preserved by Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure are thus vested in it by “law” within the meaning of Art. 21. The procedure for invoking the inherent powers is regulated by rules framed by the High Court. The power to make such rules is conferred on the High Court by the Constitution. The rules previously in force were continued in force by Article 372 of the Constitution. The order of the High Court canceling the bail and depriving the appellant of his personal liberty is according to procedure established by law and is not violative of Art. 21.”
11. It is thus clear that the inherent power of a Court set up by the Constitution is a power that inheres in such Court because it is a superior court of record, and not because it is conferred by the Code of Criminal ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY v. C. B. I. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] Procedure. This is a power vested by the Constitution itself, inter alia, under Article 215 as aforestated. Also, as such High Courts have the power, nay, the duty to protect the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 226 of the Constitution, the inherent power to do justice in cases involving the liberty of the citizen would also sound in Article 21 of the Constitution. This being the constitutional position, it is clear that Section 19(3)(c) cannot be read as a ban on the maintainability of a petition filed before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the non-obstante clause in Section 19(3) applying only to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment of this Court in Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 8 SCC 607 at paragraphs 14 and 15 does not, therefore, lay down the correct position in law. Equally, in paragraph 17 of the said judgment, despite the clarification that proceedings can be “adapted” in appropriate cases, the Court went on to hold that there is a blanket ban of stay of trials and that, therefore, Section 482, even as adapted, cannot be used for the aforesaid purpose. This again is contrary to the position in law as laid down hereinabove. This case, therefore, stands overruled.
12. At this juncture it is important to consider the 3-Judge bench decision in Madhu Limaye (supra). A 3-Judge bench of this Court decided that a Section 482 petition under the Code of Criminal Procedure would be maintainable against a Sessions Judge order framing a charge against the appellant under Section 500 of the Penal Code, despite the prohibition contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was held on two grounds. First, that even if Section 397(1) was out of the way because of the prohibition contained in Section 397(2), the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be available. This was held after referring to Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137, which was a 2-Judge Bench decision, which decided that the inherent power contained in Section 482 would not be available to defeat the bar contained in Section 397(2). The 3-Judge referred to the judgment in Amar Nath (supra) and said: “7. For the reasons stated hereinafter we think that the statement of the law apropos Point No. 1 is not quite accurate and needs some modulation. But we are going to reaffirm the decision of the Court on the second point.” (at page 554) This Court, in an important paragraph, then held: “10. As pointed out in Amar Nath case the purpose of putting a bar on the power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in an appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding, is to bring about expeditious disposal of the cases finally. More often than not, the revisional power of the High Court was resorted to in relation to interlocutory orders delaying the final disposal of the proceedings. The Legislature in its wisdom decided to check this delay by introducing sub-section (2) in Section 397. On the one hand, a bar has been put in the way of the High Court (as also of the Sessions Judge) for exercise of the revisional power in relation to any interlocutory order, on the other, the power has been conferred in almost the same terms as it was in the 1898 Code. On a plain reading of Section 482, however, it would follow that nothing in the Code, which would include sub-section (2) of Section 397 also, “shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court”, But, if we were to say that the said bar is not to operate in the exercise of the inherent power at all, it will be setting at naught one of the limitations imposed upon the exercise of the revisional powers. In such a situation, what is the harmonious way out? In our opinion, a happy solution of this problem would be to say that the bar provided in sub-section (2) of Section 397 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. Then in accordance with one of the other principles enunciated above, the inherent power will come into play, there being no other provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. But then, if the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character which could be corrected in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court under the 1898 Code, the High Court will refuse to exercise its inherent power. But in case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. But such cases would be few and far between. The High Court must exercise the inherent power very sparingly. One such case would ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY v. C. B. I. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction. Take for example a case where a prosecution is launched under the Prevention of Corruption Act without a sanction, then the trial of the accused will be without jurisdiction and even after his acquittal a second trial, after proper sanction will not be barred on the doctrine of autrefois acquit. Even assuming, although we shall presently show that it is not so, that in such a case an order of the Court taking cognizance or issuing processes is an interlocutory order, does it stand to reason to say that inherent power of the High Court cannot be exercised for stopping the criminal proceeding as early as possible, instead of harassing the accused up to the end? The answer is obvious that the bar will not operate to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. The label of the petition filed by an aggrieved party is immaterial. The High Court can examine the matter in an appropriate case under its inherent powers. The present case undoubtedly falls for exercise of the power of the High Court in accordance with Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even assuming, although not accepting, that invoking the revisional power of the High Court is impermissible. (at pages 555-556) 13.The second ground on which this case was decided was that an order framing a charge was not a purely interlocutory order so as to attract the bar of Section 392(2), but would be an “intermediate” class of order, between a final and a purely interlocutory order, on the application of a test laid down by English decisions and followed by our Courts, namely, that if the order in question is reversed, would the action then go on or be terminated. Applying this test, it was held that in an order rejecting the framing of a charge, the action would not go on and would be terminated and for this reason also would not be covered by Section 397(2). 14.This judgment was affirmed by a 4-Judge Bench in V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. (1980) Supp. SCC 92 at 128-129, where it was held that under Section 11 of the Special Courts Act, 1979, the scheme being different from the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Section opening with the words “notwithstanding anything in the Code”, the “intermediate” type of order would not obtain, and an order framing a charge would, therefore, not be liable to be appealed against, being purely interlocutory in nature. While holding this, this Court was at pains to point out: “On a true construction of Section 11(1) of the Act and taking into consideration the natural meaning of the expression ‘interlocutory order’, there can be no doubt that the order framing charges against the appellant under the Act was merely an interlocutory order which neither terminated the proceedings nor finally decided the rights of the parties. According to the test laid down in Kuppuswami’s case the order impugned was undoubtedly an interlocutory order. Taking into consideration, therefore, the natural meaning of interlocutory order and applying the non obstante clause, the position is that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are expressly excluded by the non obstante clause and therefore s. 397(2) of the Code cannot be called into aid in order to hold that the order impugned is not an interlocutory order. As the decisions of this Court in the cases of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra and Amar Nath & v. State of Haryana were given with respect to the provisions of the Code, particularly s. 397(2), they were correctly decided and would have no application to the interpretation of s. 11(1) of the Act, which expressly excludes the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure by virtue of the non obstante clause.” In Poonam Chand Jain and another v. Fazru, (2004) 13 SCC 269 at 276-279, this Court was at pains to point out that the judgment in V.C. Shukla (supra) was rendered in the background of the special statute applicable (See paragraph 13). 15.It is thus clear that Madhu Limaye (supra) continues to hold the field, as has been held in V.C. Shukla (supra) itself. How Madhu Limaye (supra) was understood in a subsequent judgment of this Court is the next bone of contention between the parties. 16.In Girish Kumar Suneja v. C.B.I., (2017) 14 SCC 809, a 3- Judge Bench of this Court was asked to revisit paragraph 10 of its earlier order dated 25th August, 2014, passed in the coal block allocation cases. While transferring cases pending before different courts to the Court of a Special Judge, this Court, in its earlier order dated 25th August, 2014, had stated: ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY v. C. B. I. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] “10. We also make it clear that any prayer for stay or impeding the progress in the investigation/trial can be made only before this Court and no other Court shall entertain the same.” Several grounds were argued before this Court stating that paragraph 10 ought to be recalled. We are concerned with grounds (i), (ii) and (vii), which are set out hereinbelow: “(i) The right to file a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the Cr.P.C. as well approaching the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been taken away; (ii) The order passed by this Court has taken away the right of the appellants to file a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and thereby judicial review, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, has been violated which even Parliament cannot violate; (vii) The prohibition in granting a stay under Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act is not absolute and in an appropriate case, a stay of proceedings could be granted in favour of an accused person particularly when there is a failure of justice. Any restrictive reading would entail a fetter on the discretion of the High Court which itself might lead to a failure of justice.” This Court referred to the judgment in Amar Nath (supra) and then to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, inter alia, stated as follows: “(d) the powers of revision against interlocutory orders are being taken away, as it has been found to be one of the main contributing factors in the delay or disposal of criminal cases;” After referring to Madhu Limaye (supra) and the difference between interlocutory and intermediate orders, this Court held in paragraphs 25, 29, 30 and 32 as follows: “25. This view was reaffirmed in Madhu Limaye when the following principles were approved in relation to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the context of Section 397(2) thereof. The principles are: “(1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party; (2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; (3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.” Therefore, it is quite clear that the prohibition in Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. will govern Section 482 thereof. We endorse this view. xxx xxx xxx 29. This leads us to another facet of the submission made by learned counsel that even the avenue of proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is barred as far as the appellants are concerned. As held in Amar Nath and with which conclusion we agree, if an interlocutory order is not revisable due to the prohibition contained in Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. that cannot be circumvented by resort to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. There can hardly be any serious dispute on this proposition. 30. What then is the utility of Section 482 CrPC? This was considered and explained in Madhu Limaye [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] which noticed the prohibition in Section 397(2) CrPC and at the same time the expansive text of Section 482 CrPC and posed the question: In such a situation, what is the harmonious way out? This Court then proceeded to answer the question in the following manner: (SCC pp. 555-56, para 10) “10. … In such a situation, what is the harmonious way out? In our opinion, a happy solution of this problem would be to say that the bar provided in sub-section (2) of Section 397 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. Then in accordance with one of the other principles enunciated above, the inherent power will come into play, there being no other provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. But then, if the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character which could be corrected in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court under the 1898 Code, the High Court ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY v. C. B. I. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] will refuse to exercise its inherent power. But in case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. But such cases would be few and far between. The High Court must exercise the inherent power very sparingly.” xxx xxx xxx 32. In Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan this Court considered the provisions of the PC Act and held that there could be no stay of a trial under the PC Act. It was clarified that that does not mean that the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be taken recourse to, but even if a litigant approaches the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and that petition is entertained, the trial under the PC Act cannot be stayed. The litigant may convince the court to expedite the hearing of the petition filed, but merely because the court is not in a position to grant an early hearing would not be a ground to stay the trial even temporarily. With respect, we do not agree with the proposition that for the purposes of a stay of proceedings recourse could be had to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Our discussion above makes this quite clear.” (at pages 832-834) However, thereafter, this Court stated the law thus in paragraph 38: “38. The Criminal Procedure Code is undoubtedly a complete code in itself. As has already been discussed by us, the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only in respect of final orders and intermediate orders. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only in respect of interlocutory orders to give effect to an order passed under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to serve the ends of justice. As indicated above, this power has to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and not otherwise. If that is the position, and we are of the view that it is so, resort to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution would be permissible perhaps only in the most extraordinary case. To invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when the Cr.P.C. restricts it in the interest of a fair and expeditious trial for the benefit of the accused person, we find it difficult to accept the proposition that since Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are available to an accused person, these provisions should be resorted to in cases that are not the rarest of rare but for trifling issues.” (at pages 835-836) 17.According to us, despite what is stated in paragraphs 25, 29 and 32 supra, the ratio of the judgment is to be found in paragraph 38, which is an exposition of the law correctly setting out what has been held earlier in Madhu Limaye (supra). A judgment has to be read as a whole, and if there are conflicting parts, they have to be reconciled harmoniously in order to yield a result that will accord with an earlier decision of the same bench strength. Indeed, paragraph 30 of the judgment sets out a portion of paragraph 10 of Madhu Limaye (supra), showing that the Court was fully aware that Madhu Limaye (supra) did not approve Amar Nath (supra) without a very important caveat – and the caveat was that nothing in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. We, therefore, read paragraph 38 as the correct ratio of the said judgment not only in terms of the applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also in terms of how it is to be applied. 18.Insofar as petitions under Articles 226 and 227 are concerned, they form part of the basic structure of the Constitution as has been held in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 261 at 301. Here again, the judgment of a Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 at 714, puts it very well when it says: “Though it cannot be said that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass orders either way, relating to the cases under the Act 1987, that power should be exercised sparingly, that too only in rare and appropriate cases in extreme circumstances. But the judicial discipline and comity of courts require that the High Courts should refrain from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in such matters.” ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY v. C. B. I. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] This aspect of Kartar Singh (supra) has been followed in Girish Kumar Suneja (supra) in paragraph 40 thereof and we respectfully concur with the same. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the Delhi High Court judgment’s conclusions in paragraph 33 (a), (b) and (d) must be set aside. 19.I agree with Goel, J. that the appeals be disposed of in accordance with his judgment. Divya Pandey Referred questions answered.