Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. As a common question of law is involved in all these petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this order.

10. Sri A. Shamanna, learned counsel appearing for the accused, contended that as the State has challenged the legality and correctness of the order of discharge separately the petitions filed by the original complainant challenging the very same order in the above petitions are not maintainable. Elaborating the said contention what he submitted was that though in theory any person can set the law in motion, that does not invest such person with a right to prosecute the matter to its logical conclusion. He contended that the purpose of the original complainant in filing the above petitions is served as the State has stepped in and filed revision petitions in the same matter with the result the original complainant ceases to be an independent entity with a cause of his own to advocate his cause. According to Sri Shamanna when once a proper party, namely, the State steps in and invokes the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401, Cr.P.C., the original complainant has to beat a retreat once for all. He further contended that as the charge-sheets have been filed in pursuance of a police report and investigation, a private party has no locus standi and if a private party is permitted to prosecute the proceedings along with the State, it would not only lead to chaos and confusion but also would amount to a sort of 'double jeopardy'.

11. Counteracting the aforesaid arguments Sri M. M. Jagirdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-original complainant contended that there is no bar for this Court to entertain a revision petition by a private party under Section 401, Cr.P.C. He contended that in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391. If that is so, he submitted that no one has a right to be heard by this Court under its revisional powers much less the State. According to hi, this Court could at any time call for the proceedings of the records or if they are brought to the notice of this Court by any one, this Court in its discretion could exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal as contemplated under S. 401, Cr.P.C. If that is so, he contended that the original complainant, being the party who set the law in motion by lodging a complaint against the accused, as an aggrieved party could maintain a revision petition. He submitted that the State does not stand on a better footing than a private party as far as the revisional powers of this Court are concerned and ultimately it is left to the discretion of the Court to hear any party.

13. Sections 397 or 401 Cr.P.C. confer general revisional jurisdiction on the High Court and Sessions Judge. Section 397 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court and Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior criminal court. Section 401 Cr.P.C. specifies the revisional powers of the High Court in dealing with any proceeding the record of which has been called for under Section 397 or which otherwise has come to its knowledge. In Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court has observed thus :-

But it is otherwise in the instant cases. If that is so, the question is whether this Court could hear both the State as also the original complainant - third party - in respect of the aforesaid impugned orders. As already stated, the learned Advocate General has submitted that as there is no prohibition under the provisions of Section 401, Cr.P.C., that only a particular person should have the right of audience, there is no legal impediment for this Court in its revisional jurisdiction to hear both the State and also the third party. While dealing with this aspect of the matter, he tried to justify his contention by adverting to the provisions dealing with appeals. In this connection he relied upon sub-section (4) of S. 378, Cr.P.C. which deals with an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon complaint and the powers of the High Court to grant special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal on an application made to it by the complainant in that behal. He also relied upon sub-section (6) of S. 378 which reads thus :-