STATE OF ORRISAversusNALINIKANTA MUDULI

                         STATE OF ORRISA                                    A
                                   v.
                      NALINIKANTA MUDULI

                          AUGUST 12, 2004

           [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]
                                                                            B

     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Proceedings
quashed by High Court relying on overruled judgment-On appeal,
matters remitted to High Court for fresh consideration
                                                                            c
     Professional Conduct-Citing of overruled judgment-Held : Citing
a judgment which has been overruled by larger Bench ofsame High Court
or by the Supreme Court without disclosing the fad that it has been
overruled is a matter of serious concern-Members of Bar, as officers of
Court have a bounden duty to assist the Court and not to mislead it.    D
      Respondent-accused filed petitions u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
chargesheet; for quashing order taking cognizance of offences under
IPC and for quashing the orders rejecting prayers to dispense with
personal appearance and recall of non-bailable warrant. Another
petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. was filed on the ground that concerned E
Investigating Officer had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter.
High_ Court, relying on judgment passed by High Court, in J.A.C.
Saldanha v. Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna and Ors., (1979)
ILR (Patna) 459 quashed the proceedings.
                                                                            F
    In appeal, appellant-State contended that reliance on the judg-
ment was of no consequence as the same was set aside by Supreme
Court in State of Bihar and Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanha and Ors. Etc., (1980]
1 sec 554.

     Allowing the appeals, the Court                                        G

     HELD : It is strange that a decision which has been overruled by
this Court nearly quarter of a century back was cited by the Bar and
the court did not take note of this position and disposed of the matter
placing reliance on the said overruled decision. The decision of this H
                                   503
    504                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Court reversing the judgment of the High Court was not brought to
  the notice of the Single Judge. Members of the Bar are officers of the
  Court. They have a bounden duty to assist the Court and not mislead
  it. Citing judgment of a Court which has been overruled by a larger
  Bench of the same High Court or this Court without disclosing the fact
B that it has been overruled is a matter of serious concern. It is one thing
  that the Court notices the judgment overruling the earlier decision and
  decides on the applicability of the later judgment to the facts under
  consideration on it. The matter was dealt with very casually. It was
  duty of the counsel for the respondent before the High Court to bring
C to the notice of the Court that the decision relied upon by the petitioner
  before the High Court has been overruled by this Court. Moreover,
  it was duty of the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High
  Court not to cite an overruled judgment. It is not that the decision is
  lost in antiquity. It has been referred to in a large number of cases since
  it was rendered. (506-C-F; 506-G-HJ
D
         2. The matter is remitted back to the High Court so that it can
    deal the petitions afresh and decide on merits taking into account the
    decision and all other relevant aspects. [507-B-CJ

E        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
    870-872 of 2004.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.2003 of the Orissa High
    Court in Cr!. M. Nos. 306, 141 and 149 of 2003.

F         Radha Shyam Jena for the Appellant.

          Jana Kalyan Das for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G         ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted.

          The State of Orissa ·questions legality of the judgment rendered by
    a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court disposing of three petitions
    filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
H   the 'Code'). The petitions were filed, inter a/ia, -(I) to quash the charge
      STATE OF ORISSA v. NALINIKANTA MUDULI [PASAYAI, J.]              505

sheet filed by the Investigating Officer (Vigilance Cell) Bhubaneshwar; (2) A
to quash the order dated 9.12.2002 taking cognizance of offences punish-
able under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short the 'IPC'); and (3) to quash the order passed rejecting the prayer in
terms of Section 205 of the Code and rejecting the prayer to recall the order
directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest. It is to be noted that B
Vigilance G.R. Case No. 17 of 200 I was at the relevant point of time
pending in the Court of Special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. The
starting point of litigation was drawing up of first information report on
29.5.2001 by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Unit Office,
Bhubaneswar. Though several government officials were charged for
commission of offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption C
Act, 1988 ( in short 'the PC Act'), according to the accused the investi-
gating officer did not find sufficient evidence to bring home charge of
complicity of the government officials and charge-sheet was filed only so
far as the present accused respondent is concerned. As cognizance was
taken and the prayer to dispense with personal appearance and recall of D
the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued were rejected petitions were filed
 under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court. A separate petition
 under Section 482 of the Code was filed taking the stand that the concerned
 investigating officer had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter and,
therefore, the proceedings before the trial court were vitiated being without E
jurisdiction. The High Court considered the last described petition as the
 pivotal one and took others to be consequential. By the impugned
judgment the High Court held that investigation was unauthorized and,
therefore, the proceedings were vitiated. Reliance was placed on a decision
of the Patna High Court in JA.C. Saladanha v. Inspector General of F
Police, Bihar, Patna and Ors., (1979) ILR Patna 459. Accordingly,
 proceedings were quashed. High Court did not think it necessary to deal
 with the other petitions separately.

      In support of the Appeal learned counsel for the State submitted that
the High Court's approach was clearly erroneous. Reliance on the decision G
of the Patna High Court, referred above, was really of no consequence as
the judgment in question has been set aside by this Court in State of Bihar
and Another v. JA.C. Saldanha and Ors. etc., [1980] I SCC 554.

     Learned counsel for the appellant-State further submitted that the H
    506                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A decision of the Patna High Court, on which the reliance was placed has
    been set aside by this Court as noted above and unfortunately effect of the
    judgment by this Court had not been considered by the High Court.

          Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted
B that the whole case was outcome of political conspiracy and ma/a fides.
    If the government officials were not proceeded with, it is strange that the
    respondent alone was picked up and accusations were made against him
    alleging commission of various offences. Therefore, it was submitted that
    the High Court's order does not need any interference.

C       It is strange that a decision which has been overruled by this Court
  nearly quarter of a century back was cited by the Bar and the court did
  not take note of this position and disposed of the matter placing reliance
  on the said overruled decision. It does not appear that the decision of this
  Court reversing the judgment of the High Court was brought to the notice
D of the learned Single Judge who was dealing the matter. It is a very
  unfortunate situation that learned counsel for the accused who is supposed
  to know the decision did not bring this aspect to the notice of the learned
  Single Judge. Members of the Bar are officers of the Court. They have
  a bounden duty to assist the Court and not mislead it. Citing judgment
E of a Court which has been overruled by a larger Bench of the same High
  Court or this Court without disclosing the fact that it has been overruled
  is a matter of serious concern. It is one thing that the Court notices the
  judgment overruling the earlier decision and decides on the applicability
  of the later judgment to the facts under consideration on it. It also does
  not appear that learned counsel appearing for the respondent before the
F High Court did not refer to judgment of this Court. All this shows that
  the matter was dealt with very casually. From the judgment of the High
  Court it is noticed that the hearing was concluded on 13.3.2003 and the
  judgment was delivered on 25.4.2003. It was certainly the duty of t'}e
  counsel for the respondent before the High Court to bring to the notice of
G the Court that the decision relied upon by the petitioner before the High
  Court has been overruled by this Court. Moreover, it was duty of the
   learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court not to
  cite an overruled judgment. It is not that the decision is lost in antiquity.
   It has been referred to in a large number of cases since it was rendered.
H It has been referred to recently in many cases e.g. S.M Datta v. State of
      STA TE OF ORI SSA v. NALINIKANTA MUDULI [PASAYAT, J.]           507
Gujarat, [2001] 7 sec 659, MC. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, A
[2003] 2 SCC 649, Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, [2003] 6 SCC
195 and earlier in many oft cited decisions in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, [1992]Supp. I SCC335,JantaDalv.HS. Chowdhary, [1992]4SCC
305, Union of India v. WN. Chadha, [1993] Supp. 4 SCC 260 and State
of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, [1992] Supp. I sec 222. We can only express B
our anguish at the falling standards of professional conducts. Impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside. We remit the matter back to the
High Court so that it can deal the petitions afresh and decide on merits
taking into account the decision and all other relevant aspects of this Court.
All the petitions before the High Court which were disposed of by the
 impugned judgment shall stand restored to its original position to be dealt C
with in accordance with law.

     Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.

K.K.T.                                                  Appeals allowed.