Case Note & Summary
The case originates from a 1990 NDPS case where an Australian national, Andrew Salvatore, was convicted for possessing charas. During appeal, the High Court acquitted him after a practical test showed that the underwear (Exhibit Mo2) did not fit him, suggesting evidence tampering. The High Court directed an inquiry, leading to an FIR in 1994 alleging that the court clerk (Accused No.1) and advocate Antony Raju (Accused No.2) conspired to replace the underwear. A chargesheet was filed in 2006 under Sections 120B, 420, 201, 193, 217, 34 IPC, and cognizance was taken in 2014. In 2022, the accused filed petitions under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings, arguing that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC applied because the alleged offences related to acts in relation to court property under 'custodia legis'. The High Court quashed the cognizance and proceedings but directed the Registry to take action under Section 195(1)(b). Two appeals were filed: one by M.R. Ajayan, a journalist who had intervened, challenging the quashing, and another by Antony Raju challenging the direction for de novo proceedings. The Supreme Court held that M.R. Ajayan had locus standi as a private individual with a bona fide connection. On the merits, the Court agreed with the High Court that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) applied because the article Mo2 was under 'custodia legis' when released, and the offences under Sections 120B and 193 IPC were covered. Therefore, cognizance on a police report was invalid. However, the Court set aside the High Court's direction for de novo proceedings, as the bar under Section 195(1)(b) precludes any fresh proceedings on the same allegations without a proper complaint. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Locus Standi - Article 136 of the Constitution - Private Individual's Appeal - A private individual with a bona fide connection to the cause may maintain an appeal under Article 136, following the principles in P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi. The appellant, editor of a news portal, had filed an intervention application before the High Court and thus had sufficient connection. (Paras 15-17) B) Criminal Procedure - Bar on Cognizance - Section 195(1)(b) CrPC - Custodia Legis - Offences under Sections 120B, 193 IPC - Where an article (Mo2) was released from court custody and later altered, the article was under 'custodia legis' at the time of release, attracting the bar under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC. Cognizance taken on a police report without complaint by the court is invalid. (Paras 13, 18-20) C) Criminal Procedure - De Novo Proceedings - Section 195(1)(b) CrPC - After quashing cognizance, the High Court cannot direct de novo steps against the accused under the same section, as the bar applies to the entire proceedings. The direction to the Registry to take action under Section 195(1)(b) was set aside. (Paras 21-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether M.R. Ajayan has locus standi to file SLP; Whether the High Court rightly held proceedings barred under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC; Whether the High Court could order de novo steps against the accused
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed both appeals. It held that M.R. Ajayan has locus standi. It upheld the High Court's finding that the proceedings were barred under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC. However, it set aside the direction for de novo proceedings against the accused, as the bar under Section 195(1)(b) precludes any fresh proceedings without a proper complaint. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Locus standi under Article 136
- Section 195(1)(b) CrPC bar on cognizance
- Custodia legis
- De novo proceedings after quashing
