Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Damodar Pednekar, was the driver of a fire tender involved in an accident with a motorcycle driven by the accused, Umakant Naik. The applicant informed the police, who after investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The trial court acquitted the accused on 28.02.2006. The State did not appeal. The applicant, describing himself as the original complainant, filed an application for leave to appeal under Section 378 CrPC. The short question before the High Court was whether a first informant, who is not a complainant as defined under the CrPC, can file such an application. The applicant relied on a Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sukhdev Singh Rana v. State of Haryana, which gave a wider meaning to 'complainant' to include victims. However, the Bombay High Court noted that in that case, the victim was also the complainant. The court examined the definition of 'complainant' under Section 2(d) CrPC, which requires a complaint to be made to a Magistrate. The applicant had only given information to the police under Section 154 CrPC, making him a first informant, not a complainant. The court held that the applicant had no locus standi to file the application for leave to appeal. The application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Locus Standi - Leave to Appeal - Section 378(4) CrPC - First Informant vs Complainant - The court considered whether a first informant who is not the complainant can file an application for leave to appeal against acquittal. The court held that the word 'complainant' in Section 378(4) must be given its meaning as defined in Section 2(d) CrPC, which refers to a person who makes a complaint to a Magistrate. A first informant who only gives information to the police under Section 154 CrPC is not a complainant. The court distinguished the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Sukhdev Singh Rana v. State of Haryana, noting that the victim in that case was the complainant. The court held that the applicant, being only a first informant and not the complainant, has no locus standi to file the application. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a first informant, who is not a complainant as understood under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can file an application for Leave to Appeal under Section 378 of the Code.
Final Decision
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant, being only a first informant and not a complainant, has no locus standi to file the application under Section 378 CrPC.
Law Points
- Locus standi
- Complainant under CrPC
- First informant
- Leave to appeal against acquittal
- Section 378(4) CrPC
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (06) 83
Criminal Misc. Application No. 216 of 2006
Mrs. Asha Dessai for Applicant, Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent no.2
Umakant Naik, State of Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Miscellaneous Application for Leave to Appeal against acquittal
Remedy Sought
Applicant (first informant/victim) sought leave to appeal against acquittal of accused in a motor accident case
Filing Reason
The applicant was the driver of a fire tender involved in an accident with the accused's motorcycle; he informed the police, and after trial the accused was acquitted; the State did not appeal, so the applicant sought leave to appeal as the original complainant
Previous Decisions
The accused was acquitted by the J.M.F.C., Panaji on 28.02.2006 in C.C. No.201/2002/A
Issues
Whether a first informant, who is not a complainant under the CrPC, can file an application for leave to appeal under Section 378 CrPC against acquittal?
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant argued that he is the victim and first informant, and relying on Sukhdev Singh Rana v. State of Haryana, the word 'complainant' should be given a wider meaning to include victims. Respondent/State submitted that the applicant is only a first informant, not a complainant, and thus has no locus standi.
Ratio Decidendi
The word 'complainant' in Section 378(4) CrPC must be interpreted as defined in Section 2(d) CrPC, i.e., a person who makes a complaint to a Magistrate. A first informant who gives information to the police under Section 154 CrPC is not a complainant and therefore has no locus standi to file an application for leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC.
Judgment Excerpts
The short question before the Court is whether a first informant, who is not a Complainant, as understood under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, can file an application for Leave to Appeal?
The applicant herein was a driver of a fire tender and the accused, (respondent no.1 herein), was the driver of a motorcycle.
The applicant, styling himself to be the original Complainant, has filed the present application for Leave to Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Procedural History
The applicant informed police about a motor accident. Police investigated and filed charge sheet against accused. Trial court acquitted accused on 28.02.2006. State did not appeal. Applicant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 216 of 2006 for leave to appeal under Section 378 CrPC. High Court dismissed the application on 15.06.2006.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 378, Section 2(d), Section 154
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 279, 337, 338
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 128
