Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal revision application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the complainant, Smt. Kalyani Subhash Buty, challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dated 18 July 2002 in Criminal Revision Application No. 304 of 2000. By that order, the Sessions Judge had allowed the accused’s revision and discharged them of offences under Sections 341, 448, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant had originally filed a complaint leading to Regular Criminal Case No. 670 of 1992 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. The accused had applied for discharge, which the Magistrate rejected. The accused then preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, who reversed the Magistrate’s order and directed discharge. The complainant was not given notice or opportunity of hearing before the Sessions Judge passed the prejudicial order. The core legal issue before the High Court was whether a complainant or first informant is entitled to a hearing under Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. before a revisional court passes an order adverse to the prosecution, such as discharge. The applicant contended that the Sessions Judge could not have allowed the accused’s revision without hearing her, relying on J.K. International v. State (AIR 2001 SC 1142), which emphasized that a private person aggrieved by an offence is not debarred from participating in the trial. The respondents argued that the complainant is not covered by the expression ‘any other person’ in Section 401(2) and that once the State undertakes prosecution, the private party has no locus standi to be heard, citing Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 911), Ravinder Bhatia v. Satnam Singh (1990 Cri. L.J. 2467), and Kerala Transport v. D. Soma (1982 Cri. L.J. 1065). The High Court analyzed the legislative intent behind Section 401(2) and the change brought by the words ‘any other person’. Relying on its earlier decision in Shriram Nagordhar v. State of Maharashtra (2006 Cri. L.J. 2216), the Court held that the phrase includes a person likely to be prejudicially affected by the revisional order. Principles of natural justice demand that such a person be given an opportunity of hearing before any order to their detriment is passed. The Court also noted that even if the State does not challenge an order, a private party may invoke revisional jurisdiction in exceptional cases of manifest error or miscarriage of justice. Without entering into the merits of the discharge, the Court concluded that the Sessions Judge’s failure to hear the complainant vitiated the order. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge with a direction to hear the complainant along with the accused and the prosecutor, and then to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The parties were directed to appear on 15 December 2011.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Right of Hearing - Section 401(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The phrase 'any other person' includes a complainant/victim who is likely to be prejudicially affected by the revisional order; hearing is mandatory before passing adverse order against such person. Failure to give such hearing violates principles of natural justice and vitiates the order. Held that the Additional Sessions Judge should have heard the complainant before discharging the accused (Paras 8-9). B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Locus Standi of Private Party - Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Even when the State does not challenge an order, a private party can maintain a revision in exceptional cases where there is a glaring procedural defect or manifest error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice. Held that the complainant, as a person aggrieved, had standing to bring the revision (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional court is required to hear the complainant/first informant before passing an order discharging the accused, thereby setting aside the trial court's order rejecting discharge, in light of Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and principles of natural justice
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 18 July 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No. 304 of 2000 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur with a direction to hear the present revision petitioner (Smt. Kalyani Subhash Buty) in addition to the accused and the learned prosecutor, and then to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Parties to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge on 15 December 2011 at 11.00 a.m. The revisional court shall decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
Law Points
- Right of complainant/informant to be heard under Section 401(2) Cr.P.C.
- Duty of revisional court to give opportunity of hearing to person likely prejudiced
- Principles of natural justice in criminal revision
- Change in legislative intent of 'any other person'
- Private party locus standi in revision when State does not challenge order
