Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, State through Police Inspector, CID Crime Branch, filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court at Goa against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 4 June 2010. The background involved the respondent, Aires Rodrigues, being prosecuted as accused no.1 in Criminal Case No. 85/2007/A. On 16 August 2004, two FIRs were lodged against him: one by Sr. Celia Fernandes for offences under Sections 509 and 504 IPC (which ended in his acquittal on 9 April 2009) and another by Fr. Newton Fernandes for offences including Sections 143, 448, 504, 506 read with 149 IPC. The respondent raised a plea of double jeopardy or autrefois acquit. The High Court had earlier directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide this and related objections. By order dated 22 December 2009, the CJM discharged the respondent under Sections 143, 448, 504, 506 read with 149 IPC, holding that he was entitled to the protection of Section 300 CrPC and that the essential ingredients of the offences were not disclosed. The State preferred Criminal Revision Application No.55/2010 before the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 4 June 2010, upheld the discharge on the ground of double jeopardy but reversed the finding on the lack of ingredients, holding that there was prima facie evidence to frame a charge under Sections 143, 448, 506 read with 149 IPC. The State, aggrieved by the upholding of the double jeopardy discharge, filed the present revision (No.43 of 2010) before the High Court. The respondent raised two preliminary objections: first, that a second revision was barred under Section 397(3) CrPC; second, that the Police Inspector had no locus standi to file the revision, contending that only the Public Prosecutor could do so. The State, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Mahesh Amonkar, argued that the bar under Section 397(3) does not apply when the State seeks revision under Section 401, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Krishnan and Anr. v. Krishnaveni & Anr. The respondent appeared in person and cited several judgments to support the bar. The Court examined the provisions of Sections 397, 399, 401, and 482 CrPC, and Article 227 of the Constitution. It held that the word ‘person’ in Section 397(3) excludes the State, and therefore the prohibition on a second revision does not apply to the State invoking revisional power under Section 401. The Court also noted that it could exercise inherent powers under Section 482 and superintendence under Article 227. Regarding locus standi, the Court observed that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised suo motu or at the instance of a stranger, and the Police Inspector’s filing was permissible, especially given the recusal of the regular Public Prosecutor. Consequently, the High Court overruled both objections and held the revision application maintainable, allowing it to be heard on merits.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Second Revision - Bar under Section 397(3) CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 397(3), 401, 482 - The accused objected that a second revision application by the State is barred by Section 397(3). The Court, relying on Krishnan and Anr. v. Krishnaveni & Anr., held that the word 'person' in Section 397(3) does not include the State, and therefore the prohibition does not apply when the State seeks revision under Section 401. Held that the revision petition is maintainable under Section 397/401, and can also be considered under Section 482 and Article 227. (Paras 7-12) B) Criminal Procedure - Locus Standi to File Revision - Revision by Police Inspector - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 397, 401 - The respondent contended that the Police Inspector lacked locus standi to file the revision, as the charge sheet had already been filed and the Public Prosecutor should have filed it. The Court observed that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised suo motu or at the instance of a stranger, and the Police Inspector’s petition merely drew the court’s attention to an alleged illegality. Held that the objection regarding locus standi was not sustainable. (Paras 13-15.1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revision application filed by the State is maintainable despite the bar under Section 397(3) CrPC; Whether the Police Inspector had locus standi to file the revision.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the respondent’s objections regarding maintainability and locus standi, holding that the State’s revision application is maintainable under Section 401 CrPC read with Section 397, Section 482 CrPC and Article 227 of the Constitution, and directed that the matter be heard on merits.
Law Points
- Prohibition under Section 397(3) CrPC does not apply to State when seeking revision under Section 401
- Word 'person' in Section 397(3) excludes State
- High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution and Section 482 CrPC
- Locus standi not required for revision as court can act suo motu
- Revisional power is to correct grave failure of justice
