# Dr. (Mrs.) Shayesta Khan & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 906
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-08
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-mrs-shayesta-khan-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44226
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

the Revisional Court, which summoned them under Section 63 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and rejected
their objections.

Para 2: The Rampur Raza Library Board (RRLB) filed a complaint alleging that it holds exclusive rights to
manuscripts and rare collections under the Rampur Raza Library Act, 1975, and its 1987 Rules.

Para 3: RRLB alleged that Petitioner-1 published a book ("Ferhist-E-Farsi") based on the library's Persian
manuscripts without permission, constituting a copyright violation.

Para 4: Following statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate found sufficient
grounds to summon the petitioners for trial under Section 63 of the Act and Section 120B IPC.

Para 5: The petitioners' subsequent application to recall the summoning order was rejected by the Magistrate
and later upheld by the Revisional Court.

Para 6: The petitioners' counsel argued they had no role in the publication, there was no evidence of their
involvement, and the publication was funded independently by another library.

Para 7: The Court notes that these defenses are for the Trial Court to examine; the High Court's current role
is limited to checking if there was enough material to justify the initial summoning.
7 All. Dr. (Mrs.) Shayesta Khan & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
907
Para 8: The Court finds that the complaint and witness statements established a prima facie case. At the
summoning stage, the Magistrate is only required to see if an offence is made out, not to evaluate the
ultimate success of the trial.

Para 9-10: Citing Adalat Prasad, the Court clarifies that a Magistrate cannot recall a summoning order as there
is no power of "review" in the Cr.P.C. The accused must present their defense during the trial, not at the
preliminary stage of issuing process.

Para 11-12: The Court refuses to discuss the merits further to avoid prejudicing the trial. It emphasizes that
writ jurisdiction cannot be used as a "mini-trial" to examine evidence that hasn't been vetted by the lower
court.
Para 13-16: The Court outlines the limited scope of Articles 226 and 227. It is a power of superintendence to
keep lower courts within their bounds, not an appellate power to correct every perceived error or hardship.

Para 17-21: Various precedents are cited to establish that findings of fact cannot be overturned unless they
are "perverse" or "patently erroneous." The High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the lower
court.

Para 22-24: It is emphasized that even if a second view is possible, the Writ Court should not interfere as long
as the lower court's decision is based on some relevant material.

Para 25-27: The Court reiterates that supervisory jurisdiction is used "sparingly" to prevent the miscarriage of
justice or flagrant violations of law, ensuring the "wheel of just

## Text

906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

39. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the courts below forthwith for immediate
compliance.
------------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.- 4775 Of 2003

Dr. (Mrs.) Shayesta Khan & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shri V.M. Zaidi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Shri J.N. Sharma

Held -

Para 1: Petitioners Dr. Shayesta Khan and Abid Raza Badar challenge the orders of the Judicial Magistrate and
the Revisional Court, which summoned them under Section 63 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and rejected
their objections.

Para 2: The Rampur Raza Library Board (RRLB) filed a complaint alleging that it holds exclusive rights to
manuscripts and rare collections under the Rampur Raza Library Act, 1975, and its 1987 Rules.

Para 3: RRLB alleged that Petitioner-1 published a book ("Ferhist-E-Farsi") based on the library's Persian
manuscripts without permission, constituting a copyright violation.

Para 4: Following statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate found sufficient
grounds to summon the petitioners for trial under Section 63 of the Act and Section 120B IPC.

Para 5: The petitioners' subsequent application to recall the summoning order was rejected by the Magistrate
and later upheld by the Revisional Court.

Para 6: The petitioners' counsel argued they had no role in the publication, there was no evidence of their
involvement, and the publication was funded independently by another library.

Para 7: The Court notes that these defenses are for the Trial Court to examine; the High Court's current role
is limited to checking if there was enough material to justify the initial summoning.
7 All. Dr. (Mrs.) Shayesta Khan & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
907
Para 8: The Court finds that the complaint and witness statements established a prima facie case. At the
summoning stage, the Magistrate is only required to see if an offence is made out, not to evaluate the
ultimate success of the trial.

Para 9-10: Citing Adalat Prasad, the Court clarifies that a Magistrate cannot recall a summoning order as there
is no power of "review" in the Cr.P.C. The accused must present their defense during the trial, not at the
preliminary stage of issuing process.

Para 11-12: The Court refuses to discuss the merits further to avoid prejudicing the trial. It emphasizes that
writ jurisdiction cannot be used as a "mini-trial" to examine evidence that hasn't been vetted by the lower
court.
Para 13-16: The Court outlines the limited scope of Articles 226 and 227. It is a power of superintendence to
keep lower courts within their bounds, not an appellate power to correct every perceived error or hardship.

Para 17-21: Various precedents are cited to establish that findings of fact cannot be overturned unless they
are "perverse" or "patently erroneous." The High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the lower
court.

Para 22-24: It is emphasized that even if a second view is possible, the Writ Court should not interfere as long
as the lower court's decision is based on some relevant material.

Para 25-27: The Court reiterates that supervisory jurisdiction is used "sparingly" to prevent the miscarriage of
justice or flagrant violations of law, ensuring the "wheel of justice" is not unnecessarily halted.

Para 28-30: Reconfirmation that the High Court should not act as an appellate body under Articles 226/227
and should only intervene in extreme cases of irrationality or jurisdictional error.

Para 31-32: Finding no error in the lower courts' orders, the High Court dismisses the petition and vacates any
interim stays.

List of Citations:

Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and others, 2004(7) SCC 338
D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee, 1953 SC 58
Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another, AIR 1954 SC 215
Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee, AIR 1951 Cal. 193
Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors., AIR 1984 SC 38
Nibaran Chandra Bag Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895
Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., AIR 1971 SC 746
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896
Laxmikant R. Bhojwani Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 300
M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sub-Judicial Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749
Virendra Kashinath Ravat & ors. Vs. Vinayak N. Joshi & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 47
Rena Drego Vs. Lalchand Soni & ors., (1998) 3 SCC 341
Chandra Bhushan Vs. Beni Prasad & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 70
Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs. Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171
Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs. Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 143
Union of India & ors. Vs. Himmat Singh Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-opeative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC
82
Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer, AIR 2000 SC 931
Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union, (2000) 4 SCC 245
Union of India Vs. Rajendra Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472
State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & ors., (2001) 1 SCC 4
Extrella Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97
Omeph Mathai & ors. Vs. M. Abdul Khader, (2002) 1 SCC 319
Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others, (2003) 6 SCC 675
Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 8 SCC 294
Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329
Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and another, AIR 2011 SC 1353
Bandaru Satyanarayana Vs. Imandi Anasuya, (2011) 12 SCC 650
Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others, (2010) 2 SCC
432
T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2011) 2 SCC 772
Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 244
Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma, (2001) 9 SCC 592

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by two
petitioners, namely, Dr. (Mrs.) Shayesta Khan and Abid Raza Badar, assailing orders dated
26.10.1999 and 21.09.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Case No. 422 of 2002 for
summoning petitioners under Section 63 of Indian Copy Right Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as
the "Act, 1957"), after rejecting their objections. Petitioners have also challenged order dated
22.05.2003 passed by Sri Lokendra Kumar Rathi, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.
2), Rampur (hereinafter referred to as the "Revisional Court") dismissing Criminal Revision No.
230 of 2002 and confirming Magistrate's order dated 26.10.1999 summoning petitioners under
Section 63 of Act, 1957 and order dated 21.09.2002, whereby petitioners' objection and application
for recall of summoning order was rejected.

2. Facts giving rise to present petition are that a complaint was filed by Rampur Raza
Library Board (hereinafter referred to as the "RRLB") against petitioners as well as two others,
namely, M/s Makhtaba Jamia Limited through its Proprietor/ Partner / Authorized Person and
Khuda Bux Oriental Public Library, Patna (Bihar) through its Director for proceeding against them
under Section 63 of Act, 1957. Complaint case set up was that RRLB is a Body Corporate under
Rampur Raza Library Act, 1975 (Central Act No. 22 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act,
1975"). It is an old and prestigious institution founded in the year 1974 by then Ruler of Rampur
Estate. Library possessed very precious and rare collections of manuscripts, documents, paintings,
specimens of calligraphy, printed books in various languages such as Urdu, Hindi, Arbic, Persian,
Sanskrit, Turkish and Tamil etc. RRLB possessed all rights to publish and print any work available
in Library or to develop the same by virtue of Rampur Raza Library Anurakshan Rules, 1987
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1987").
7 All. Dr. (Mrs.) Shayesta Khan & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
909
3. Accused-1, i.e., petitioner-1, published a book named, "Ferhist-E-Farsi" from Persian
Manuscripts available in Library alleging that same was communicated by Accused-2 in the name
of publisher-accused-4. In respect of aforesaid Manuscripts, Rampur Raza Library is the first owner
and without seeking its permission, publication of work from said Manuscripts amounts to
violation of Act, 1957.

4. Judicial Magistrate recorded statement of Sri W.H. Siddiqui as representative of RRLB
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also statement of Abu Sad Ilahi under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and
thereafter summoned Accused-1 and 3, (petitioners before this Court) vide order dated 26.10.1999
for being tried under Section 63 of Act, 1957 read with Section 120B IPC and complaint was
rejected against Accused-2 and 4.

5. Petitioners then filed objections against summoning order dated 26.10.1999 and
requested for its recall, which has been rejected by Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 21.09.2002
and revision preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by Revisional Court vide order dated
22.05.2003.

6. Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners, contended that
petitioners have no role in publication of aforesaid Manuscripts/work. There is no evidence to show
any knowledge of petitioners in regard of aforesaid publication. There is no resolution passed by
Board so as to authorize RRLB to file complaint and further that publication was done by Khuda
Bux Oriental Public Library, Patna (Bihar) out of its own funds and there is no implication of
petitioners in the matter at all.

7. Most of the arguments raised by learned counsel for petitioners are basically advanced
which are yet to be examined by Trial Court since petitioners are yet to appear and place their
defence before Court below. At this stage it cannot be lost sight that petitioners have come to this
Court challenging only summoning order passed by Judicial Magistrate and, therefore, scope of
judicial review is limited to the extent whether there was material before Judicial Magistrate to
summon petitioners under Section 63 of Act, 1957 read with Section 120B IPC.

8. A bare perusal of complaint which has been supported by statements made on behalf of
complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it cannot be doubted
that a prima facie case of violation of Section 63 of Act, 1957 and Section 120B IPC has been made
out. Whether there is any evidence to prove charge against petitioners is a matter to be examined in
trial when both parties shall be free to lead evidence in entirety but at the stage of summoning
Magistrate is supposed to apply its mind only to material placed before it and to find out whether
there is prima facie case made out by complainant, with objective consideration so as to proceed for
trial against accused persons in respect of offences which has been made out in complaint
supported by statements made under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. So far as these materials are
concerned, I have no manner of doubt that a prima facie case has been made out by complainant
and Magistrate has rightly issued summoning order which has been confirmed by Revisional Court.
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. In Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and others, 2004(7) SCC 338 it has been
observed that condition precedent for issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is satisfaction of
Magistrate either by examination of complainant and witnesses or by inquiry contemplated under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with complaint. Till this stage
there is nothing which requires Magistrate to hear summoned accused. This is only a preliminary
stage and stage of hearing of accused would arise subsequently as provided under Code of Criminal
Procedure. Inquiry to be made by Magistrate at this stage is confined to the material available
before him as contemplated under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and not to the possible defence
which may be placed by summoned accused after appearing before Magistrate. Court also held that
Magistrate has no power to recall its order of summoning since accused cannot invoke Section 203
Cr.P.C. but remedy lies by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. Paras 15 and 16 of the judgment read as
under:

"15. It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process
without there being any allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or
in contravention of provision of Sections 200 & 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated,
but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that stage is not by invoking Section 203 of
the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. Hence
in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal courts, the
remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of Code.

16. Therefore, in our opinion the observation of this Court in the case of Mathew
(supra) that for recalling an order of issuance of process erroneously, no specific provision of law
is required would run counter to the Scheme of the Code which has not provided for review and
prohibits interference at inter-locutory stages. Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the view of this
Court in Mathew's case (supra) that no specific provision is required for recalling an erroneous
order, amounting to one without jurisdiction, does not lay down the correct law."

10. The law laid down in above authority is clear that Magistrate has to form its opinion on
the basis of material placed before it and the possible defence of accused is not to be seen since that
is a stage which would come subsequent to the issue of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C.

11. Since entire trial is yet to proceed, any further discussion on the matter is bound to
prejudice interest of parties, therefore, I am refraining myself from discussing matter further but at
this stage I am satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of record in impugned orders so
as to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. I may put a word of caution that in writ jurisdiction Court will not permit accused
persons to place material which has not been subject matter of scrutiny by Court below so as to turn
writ jurisdiction as a trial to examine for the first time entire defence of accused to find out whether
there would be a successful trial or not. A stage which is yet to come before Court below cannot be
allowed to be made in writ jurisdiction by placing certain material which is yet to be examined by
Trial Court. Petitioners will have full opportunity of placing their defence before Court below and
7 All. Dr. (Mrs.) Shayesta Khan & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
911
something which has not come before Court below till date should not be examined by this Court to
consider correctness of summoning order passed by Court below on the basis of material placed
before it for the first time by accused.

13. Even otherwise, scope of judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is
not like Appellate Court. The scope of judicial review in such matters where the orders of courts
below are assailed before this Court is very limited. This power involves a duty on the High Court
to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do
what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High
Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made
within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave
dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave
injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.

14. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 the Court said:

"Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law
calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
to interfere."

15. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the
Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and
made following observations at p. 571 :

"This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by
Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193, to be
exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts
within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors".

16. In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38 the Apex Court held
that this Court has very limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution and even the errors of
law cannot be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the
Constitution. The power can be used sparingly when it comes to the conclusion that the
Authority/Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of
jurisdiction. The High Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship
or wrong decision. For interference, there must be a case of flagrant abuse of fundamental
principles of law or where order of the Tribunal, etc. Has resulted in grave injustice.

17. For interference under Article 227, the finding of facts recorded by the Authority
should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on
record. (See: Nibaran Chandra Bag Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895;
Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs. The State of Bihar & ors., AIR 1971 SC 746; Gujarat Steel Tubes
Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1896; Laxmikant R.
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Bhojwani Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Singh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576; Reliance Industries
Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai Jasbhai Patel & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 300; M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
Sub-Judicial Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749; and Virendra Kashinath Ravat & ors. Vs.
Vinayak N. Joshi & ors. (1999) 1 SCC 47).

18. It is well settled that power under Article 227 is of the judicial superintendence which
cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be, unless such
conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. (See:
Rena Drego Vs. Lalchand Soni & ors., (1998) 3 SCC 341; Chandra Bhushan Vs. Beni Prasad
& ors., (1999) 1 SCC 70; Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate & ors. Vs. Raichand Dhanraj Lunja,
(1999) 2 SCC 171; and Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs. Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union &
Anr.,(1999) 2 SCC 143).

19. Power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not in the nature of power of appellate
authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. It should not alter the conclusion reached by the
Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. (See: Union of
India & ors. Vs. Himmat Singh Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521).

20. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-opeative Marketing cum Processing Service Society
Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is no justification for the High
Court to substitute its view for the opinion of the Authorities/ Courts below as the same is not
permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

21. In Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer, AIR 2000 SC 931,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution is not appealable but supervisory. Therefore, it cannot interfere with the findings of
fact recorded by Courts below unless there is no evidence to support findings or the findings are
totally perverse.

22. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union
(2000) 4 SCC 245, the Court observed that it is impermissible for the Writ Court to reappreciate
evidence liberally and drawing conclusions on its own on pure questions of fact for the reason that
it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by Tribunal. The findings of fact
recorded by the fact finding authority duly constituted for the purpose ordinarily should be
considered to have become final. The same cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having based
on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of Writ Court to warrant those
findings. At any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the
purpose no interference is called for. Even on the ground that there is yet another view which can
reasonably and possibly be taken the High Court can not interfere.

23. In Union of India Vs. Rajendra Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the
7 All. Dr. (Mrs.) Shayesta Khan & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
913
Constitution, cannot re-appreciate the evidence nor it can substitute its subjective opinion in place
of the findings of Authorities below.

24. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & ors., (2001) 1
SCC 4; Extrella Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97; and Omeph Mathai & ors.
Vs. M. Abdul Khader, (2002) 1 SCC 319.

25. In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) 6 SCC 675, it was held
that in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227, High Court can correct errors of
jurisdiction committed by subordinate Courts. It also held that when subordinate court has assumed
a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or
jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law and failure of
justice or grave injustice has occasioned, the Court may step in to exercise its supervisory
jurisdiction. However, it also said that be it a writ of certiorari or exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless error is manifest and
apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of
the provisions of law; or, a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

26. In Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294, the Court said:

"...while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided
that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in
order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of
superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High
Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the
subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as
the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions."

27. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC
329, the Court said that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to
ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and
unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts
subordinate to High Court. The above authority has been cited and followed in Kokkanda B.
Poondacha and others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and another AIR 2011 SC 1353 and Bandaru
Satyanarayana Vs. Imandi Anasuya (2011) 12 SCC 650.

28. In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and
others (2010) 2 SCC 432, Apex Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction.

29. In T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others (2011) 2 SCC 772, the Court said
that power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in
appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority.

30. In Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder Kumar (2011) 10
SCC 244, Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma (2001) 9
SCC 592 observed that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or
irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227.

31. In view thereof, I find no justification warranting interference with the orders impugned
in this writ petition.

32. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
------------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.- 4878 of 2016

Raju @ Abid ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri Tapan Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., A.S.G.I., Shri N.D. Rai

Held -

Nature of the Petition
The petitioner, Raju @ Abid, filed a writ of Habeas Corpus seeking to quash his detention order dated August
28, 2015, issued under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (NSA), and the subsequent approval order by
the State Government.

Background and Allegations
The detention was based on the recovery of counterfeit currency notes totaling ₹2,94,000 from the petitioner
and his accomplices. He was also allegedly involved in a similar case from 2012 involving ₹2,50,000 in
counterfeit notes. The authorities argued his activities disturbed public order and harmed the national
economy.