Limited Notice Does Not Restrict Hearing on Additional Points: Supreme Court
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation ruled that issuing a limited notice does not restrict its jurisdiction from addressing broader issues. If a petitioner highlights substantial legal questions or glaring errors, such as procedural lapses or flawed findings in the lower court’s judgment, the Bench may examine them beyond the notice’s initial scope.
A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan was hearing a criminal appeal where leave was granted on two issues: the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and the quantum of sentence for other offences. However, the appellant’s counsel sought to argue for acquittal, which the respondent opposed as beyond the limited notice.
Rejecting this objection, the Court emphasized that a restricted notice does not curtail its jurisdiction. It heard the appellant’s broader arguments, stating that procedural constraints should not override substantial justice. Although the appeal was ultimately unsuccessful, the ruling affirmed that significant legal questions warranting the Court’s attention cannot be disregarded, even if beyond the original scope of notice.