9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act, the contravention of which she is punishable under section 276DD of the said Act. The complaint filed in March, 1988, has been taken on file against the first respondent in E. O. C. C. No. 207 of 1988. The first respondent, during the end of April, 1988, filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2854 of 1988 on the file of this court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in E. 0. C. C. No. 207 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and to quash the proceedings therein for the reasons stated in the petition. It is also seen from the said petition that, among other contentions, the constitutional validity of section 269SS read with section 276DD of the Act has been challenged as being ultra vires, offending article 14 of the Constitution of India. On April 29, 1988, this court admitted Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2854 of 1988 and notice returnable by June 15, 1988, was ordered. In Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2855 of 1988, stay of all further proceedings pending in the trial court was ordered. In Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2856 of 1988, the appearance of the first respondent b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal hearing". An allegation is made against the second respondent for not having moved this court to have the stay vacated and this deliberate delay on the part of the second respondent is stated to be a failure to discharge the obligation, necessitating this application being moved in public interest by the petitioner. The final paragraph in the affidavit states that since the first respondent had ventured to enter public life by filing her nomination for the Legislative Assembly from No. 133, Bodinayakanur Assembly Constituency, when she is facing a criminal prosecution at the instance of the Income-tax Department, the petitioner is a necessary and proper party to be impleaded as a respondent in the main criminal miscellaneous petition. It is also prayed that the stay granted in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2855 of 1988 and the dispensing with the appearance of the first respondent ordered in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2856 of 1988 be vacated. The first respondent has filed a counter-statement in which it is stated that the petitioner not being a party to the proceeding has no locus standi to file this petition. The offence for which the first respondent is pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while dealing with the scope of section 391, Criminal Procedure Code, concerning the additional evidence sought to be let in before the High Court to remove a technical or formal defect which was denied on the ground of lapse of six years, observed as follows (at p. 1324 of AIR 1987 SC): "Ends of justice are not satisfied only when the accused in a criminal case is acquitted. The community acting through the State and the Public Prosecutor is also entitled to justice. The cause of the community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The community or the State is not a persona non grata whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to adminis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ravanabhavanandam v. P. S. S. Murugaiyyan, [1986] LW (Crl.) 165, wherein Sengottuvelan, J., while considering the right of a third party relation of the victim of the offence being impleaded in bail and anticipatory bail petitions, had observed that there was no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to implead third party in a prosecution case. The close relations of the aggrieved party were entitled only to assist the prosecution and cannot be impleaded as party to the proceedings. The observations of Sengottuvelan J. are also based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak [1984] 2 SCC 500; AIR 1984 SC 718, wherein the following observation has been made (at page 723 of AIR 1984): "Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the statute creating an offence provides for the eligibility of the complainant, by necessary implication the general principle gets excluded by such statutory provision. Punishment of the offender in the interest of the society being one of the objects behind penal statutes enacted for the larger good of the society, the right to initiate proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n set the criminal law in motion. The Supreme Court, in Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 877, has observed as follows (at p. 889) : "It is now settled law that a criminal proceeding is not a proceeding for vindication of a private grievance but it is a proceeding initiated for the purpose of punishment to the offender in the interest of the society. It is for maintaining stability and orderliness in the society that certain acts are constituted offences and the right is given to any citizen to set the machinery of the criminal law in motion for the purpose of bringing the offender to book. It is for this reason that in A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak [1984] 2 SCC 500 ; AIR 1984 SC 718, at page 723, this court pointed out that 'punishment of the offender in the interests of the society being one of the objects behind penal statutes enacted for the larger good of the society, the right to initiate, proceedings cannot be whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a strait-jacket formula of locus standi'. This court observed that the locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence. Now, if any citizen can lodge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lead himself in this petition. The authorities relied upon by Thiru S. K. Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, can now be considered to determine if his proposition stands supported by the dicta laid down. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [1987] 2 SCC 364, the point that was considered was the legitimacy of the High Court's action in having refused to permit the prosecution to adduce additional evidence on the ground of lapse of six years, when the provision of section 391, Criminal Procedure Code, was sought to be invoked. The prosecution was under the Gold (Control) Act as well as under the Customs Act relating to the seizure of a wrist chain weighing 820 gms. coated with mercury to pass it off as being made of silver. Additional evidence was sought for to remove the alleged formal defect in the proof of the main master. In that context, the Supreme Court had made the observations quoted earlier in this order and that can have no relevance in considering the right of the petitioner to be impleaded in the present proceedings. In S. P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 (judges transfer case), the Supreme Court pointed out, while considering t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emoval of public nuisance before the competent Magistrate. That was again a case of public injury where there was no bar to initiate criminal action and the said pronouncement cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner on the facts of this case. The arguments of learned counsel, Thiru N. C. Raghavachari, appearing for the first respondent that there is no public interest in the prosecution and that the Income-tax Act is a self-contained code providing for initiation of prosecution in respect of certain offences at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, will have to be upheld. It is fairly obvious that if the petitioner has no right to set the law in motion, he can have no locus standi to intervene at this stage, especially when the prosecution has to be at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and which could not be launched in any other manner, and the offence is also capable of being compounded at any stage, by the Commissioner. There is no public wrong or public injury involved in this prosecution and the first respondent is entitled to approach this court for quashing of the proceedings initiated against her, if she felt aggrieved that the prosecution was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
