Cr.P.C. (2 of 1974), Section 321, 397 - Application filed by the Deputy Director of Prosecution wherefrom it is manifest that the Government had no objection in withdrawing the case and the decision of the Government has been filed along with the application -  Trial court observed that it has gone through the petition and is satisfied that the grounds stated therein are sufficient for giving consent to withdraw the case and that on analyzing materials that there is no possibility of success in the criminal case and, therefore, the withdrawal from prosecution is necessary for the better advancement of public justice - It is clearly manifest that the Public Prosecutor had not applied his mind but had only placed the Government notification on record - Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, has an important role under the statutory scheme and is expected to act as an independent person - He/she has to apply his/her own mind and consider the effect of withdrawal on the society in the event such permission is granted -  In the case at hand, as is evincible, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has dwelt upon the merits and expressed an opinion that the case is not likely to end in conviction - It is a case where the Public Prosecutor had acted like a post office and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed an order not within the parameters of Section 321 CrPC - He should have applied the real test stipulated under Section 321 CrPC and the decisions of this Court but that has not been done – Order set aside.  (2018)2 SCeJ 1519

 

Cr.P.C. (2 of 1974), S.397- The High Court has unsuited the petitioners on the ground that they are third parties who are unconnected with the case -  Petitioners had filed revisions and the High Court has been conferred power to entertain the revisions and rectify the errors which are apparent or totally uncalled for - This is the power of superintendence of the High Court - Thus viewed, the petitioners could not have been treated as strangers, for they had brought it to the notice of the High Court and hence, it should have applied its mind with regard to the correctness of the order -  It may be said with certitude that the revision petitions filed before the High Court were not frivolous ones -  They were of serious nature -  It is a case where the Public Prosecutor had acted like a post office and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed an order not within the parameters of Section 321 CrPC -  He should have applied the real test stipulated under Section 321 CrPC and the decisions of this Court but that has not been done - Order of High Court dismissing revision petitions, erroneous - Set aside. (2018)2 SCeJ 1519

 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 (II of 1974) - Section 397(1)   - Whether for grant of relief of suspension of sentence, in revision, the accused need to surrender and undergo confinement in terms of provisions of Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Whether before admitting the revision it is necessary first to direct the accused to surrender himself - Appellate Court pronounced the Judgment in absence of the appellant-accused –  Under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no such requirement though many High Courts in this country have made such provision in the respective rules of the High Court - But it is stated to us that there is no such rule in the Bombay High Court Rules - Therefore, this Court cannot reject the revision application, on the ground, that the accused has not surrendered - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1981)  Section 138. Bihari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and another, (2000) 10 SCC 346, followed. #2020 SCeJ 831 (Bom.)

 

 

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 397(2) , 482 - Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C provides that the High Court's powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding -  Whereas Section 482 of the Cr.P.C provides that nothing in the Cr.P.C will limit the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice -  Hence the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 to set aside an interlocutory order, notwithstanding the bar under Section 397(2) -  However it is settled law that this can only be done in exceptional cases - This is, for example, where a criminal proceeding has been initiated illegally, veraciously or without jurisdiction - Companies Act, 2013, Section 452 - Companies Act, 1956,  Section 630.  (2020-1)197 PLR 722 (SC)

 

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 397(2) , 482 - Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C provides that the High Court's powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding -  Whereas Section 482 of the Cr.P.C provides that nothing in the Cr.P.C will limit the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice -  Hence the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 to set aside an interlocutory order, notwithstanding the bar under Section 397(2) -  However it is settled law that this can only be done in exceptional cases - This is, for example, where a criminal proceeding has been initiated illegally, veraciously or without jurisdiction - Companies Act, 2013, Section 452 - Companies Act, 1956,  Section 630. See Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551. 2020 SCeJ 34 . Download

 

 


PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

 Annual subscription Rs. 2800/- (2020)

punjablawreporter@gmail.com / 9463598502