2001 (11) TMI 1017 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant should have been heard before the court ordered prosecution.
2. The interpretation and application of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the appellant should have been heard before the court ordered prosecution.
The appellant contended that the court should have heard him before ordering prosecution for using forged documents in a land acquisition proceeding. The High Court dismissed this plea, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the scheme of Sections 340 to 344 of the CrPC does not mandate a preliminary hearing for the person against whom the complaint is made. The court emphasized that the preliminary inquiry is not for determining guilt but to decide if it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the alleged offence. The court stated, "Principles of natural justice would not be hampered by not hearing the person concerned at the stage of deciding whether such person should be proceeded against or not."

Issue 2: The interpretation and application of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Section 340 CrPC allows a court to conduct a preliminary inquiry to decide if an offence affecting the administration of justice has been committed. The court may then make a complaint to a Magistrate. The Supreme Court clarified that it is not mandatory for the court to conduct a preliminary inquiry before forming an opinion. The court stated, "It is not peremptory that such preliminary inquiry should be held. Even without such preliminary inquiry the court can form such an opinion." The court further explained that the person against whom the complaint is made has the right to be heard during the pre-trial inquiry before the Magistrate, as outlined in Sections 238 to 243 of the CrPC. The court concluded that there is no statutory requirement to afford an opportunity of hearing to the person at the preliminary inquiry stage under Section 340 CrPC.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court that the appellant was not entitled to a hearing during the preliminary inquiry conducted by the reference court u/s 340 CrPC.