In Brief
Asian Resurfacing and Others were prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code for alleged wrongful loss to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi through fake invoices. The Special Judge framed charges. When the appellants challenged the charge order before the High Court, a conflict arose: whether such interlocutory orders could be challenged under Articles 226/227 or Section 482, given Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act appears to bar such challenges. The Supreme Court held that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain such challenges in appropriate cases to correct patent illegality, but this extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly and only in rarest of rare cases. Stay of proceedings should generally not exceed six months unless extended by a speaking order. The legislative intent for expeditious trials must be respected.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.