In order to decide the above issue, it may be appropriate
for this court to examine as to what the words “proceedings” and
“regular” would mean. The word ‘proceeding’ is defined in the Shorter
Oxford Dictionary “as doing a legal action or process, any act done by
the authority of a court of law.” In other words, as per the dictionary
meaning of the word ‘proceeding’, it is the course of procedure in an
action at law and an action, measure or step in a course of business or
conduct. The Criminal Procedure Code does not define the word
‘proceeding’ though the same is being used in the provisions of some
of the sections like Section 195 (1)(b), 116 (3) etc. of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Various High Courts have examined the word
‘proceeding’ with reference to the particular statute involved therein
and have expressed their views that the word ‘proceeding’ is not
purely a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it.
Necessarily the term indicates a prescribed mode in which judicial
business is conducted. A ‘proceeding’ may in some statutes mean an
action or that which initiates an action and in other enactments it may
also mean a step in an action. The expression ‘proceedings’ with
reference to a case, would mean taking of steps in connection with the
further progress of the case. When a case is listed for hearing and the
case is taken up by the court and an order is also made in the case, it
would be proceedings in the case.
As per Webster’s New World Dictionary, the word
‘regular’ is defined as consistent or habitual in action; not changing;
uniform; conforming to a standard or to a generally accepted rule or
mode of conduct. As regards the word ‘regularity’ also, various High
Courts have examined it and expressed their views that the term
‘regularity’ is a well recognised term and well recognised ground of
judicial interference on an appeal or revision. The word ‘regular’ gives
a constant course of conduct without any break or breach. It is
‘irregular’ when the procedure followed is in violation of the principles
Print Page
for this court to examine as to what the words “proceedings” and
“regular” would mean. The word ‘proceeding’ is defined in the Shorter
Oxford Dictionary “as doing a legal action or process, any act done by
the authority of a court of law.” In other words, as per the dictionary
meaning of the word ‘proceeding’, it is the course of procedure in an
action at law and an action, measure or step in a course of business or
conduct. The Criminal Procedure Code does not define the word
‘proceeding’ though the same is being used in the provisions of some
of the sections like Section 195 (1)(b), 116 (3) etc. of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Various High Courts have examined the word
‘proceeding’ with reference to the particular statute involved therein
and have expressed their views that the word ‘proceeding’ is not
purely a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it.
Necessarily the term indicates a prescribed mode in which judicial
business is conducted. A ‘proceeding’ may in some statutes mean an
action or that which initiates an action and in other enactments it may
also mean a step in an action. The expression ‘proceedings’ with
reference to a case, would mean taking of steps in connection with the
further progress of the case. When a case is listed for hearing and the
case is taken up by the court and an order is also made in the case, it
would be proceedings in the case.
As per Webster’s New World Dictionary, the word
‘regular’ is defined as consistent or habitual in action; not changing;
uniform; conforming to a standard or to a generally accepted rule or
mode of conduct. As regards the word ‘regularity’ also, various High
Courts have examined it and expressed their views that the term
‘regularity’ is a well recognised term and well recognised ground of
judicial interference on an appeal or revision. The word ‘regular’ gives
a constant course of conduct without any break or breach. It is
‘irregular’ when the procedure followed is in violation of the principles
of Natural Justice and fair play.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Cril. Revn. Petn. No. 8 of 2015
Shri K. Meghachandra Singh,
V
Oinam (O) Itamani Devi,
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH
Dated: 11-08-2015
Citation: 2016 CRLJ4332 Manipur
AT IMPHAL
Cril. Revn. Petn. No. 8 of 2015
Shri K. Meghachandra Singh,
V
Oinam (O) Itamani Devi,
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH
Dated: 11-08-2015
Citation: 2016 CRLJ4332 Manipur
