AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned standing counsel.
The Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 6.4.2003, Annexure-7 to the writ petition. By that order, the Character Certificates, granted to the Petitioners have been cancelled.
It has been alleged in paragraph 14 of the petition that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners.
Even if that allegation is correct, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case. A criminal case u/s 302, I.P.C. is pending against the Petitioners in which not only charge-sheet has been filed by the police but even charges have been framed by the sessions court as is evident from Annexure-7 read with Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is surprising that although the Petitioners are implicated in a murder case in which charge-sheet has been filed against them by the police after investigation and even charges have been framed against them by the sessions court yet no objection certificates regarding their character were granted to them by the orders copies of which are Annexures-4, 5 and 6 to the petition.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the fact that a criminal case was pending against the Petitioners was taken into consideration while granting the character certificates. We do not want to comment on this issue because we know what is happening in this country, character certificates are given even to mafia, leaders and persons implicated in serious cases of murder, kidnapping, etc. for extraneous consideration.
In our opinion, until and unless the Petitioners are exonerated in the case u/s 302, I.P.C. against them, there is no question of granting character certificate to them. Hence the character certificates were rightly, cancelled by the impugned order, and in fact they should not have been granted at all in the first instance. Rules of natural justice are not a strait jacket formula, and each case has to be considered on its own facts. In the present case, it is admitted that charge-sheet has been filed u/s 302, I.P.C. against the Petitioners and charges have been framed against them. Hence this is not a fit case for exercise of our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed but with the observation that it is only if the Petitioners are acquitted in the criminal case, then they can again pray for No Objection Certificate.