9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llah [ 2016 (4) TMI 1474 - SUPREME COURT ], this Court dealt with this issue in detail and observed ' From the material placed on record, it is clear that the appellants have precise connection with the matter at hand and thus, have locus to maintain this appeal.' More recently, similar to the case at hand, in Naveen Singh v. State of U.P. (2- Judge Bench) [ 2021 (3) TMI 1466 - SUPREME COURT ] , while considering the locus of the Petitioner therein, this Court observed that since the allegations concerned tampering with the order of the Court, hence locus is not that important but, in fact, insignificant with the State not carrying forward the matter any further. The locus standi of the appellant in SLP(Crl.)No.4887 of 2024, does not come in the way of this Court hearing the same. The case at hand, which has been quashed by the High Court, involves serious allegations of interference with judicial processes which strike at the very foundation of both dispensation and the administration of justice. Therefore, the first issue is answered in the affirmative as it is incumbent upon this Court to check the correctness of the approach adopted by the High Court, and the locus of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been registered, in the circumstance referred to hereinbefore. But then, the interference by the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings was unwarranted. In view of the above the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed. - C. T. RAVIKUMAR And SANJAY KAROL , JJ. JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL J. Leave Granted. 2. The present appeals arise from the common final judgment and order dated 10th March, 2023 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRL.M.C.No.5261 of 2022, whereby the order taking cognizance in Crime No.215/1994 and all further proceedings pursuant to the same (C.C. No. 811 of 2014) on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Nedumangad, were quashed and the Registry of the High Court was directed to take appropriate action against Antony Raju in accordance with the procedure set out under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter Cr.P.C . FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The genesis of this case dates back to the year 1990. On 4th April, 1990, an FIR came to be registered bearing Crime No.60 of 1990, under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, wherein an Australian national, Andrew Salvatore, was travell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigation into the incident. This resulted in an Office Memorandum dated 27th September, 1994 being issued by the High Court requesting the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to direct the Sheristadar to lodge a First Information Report before the police. 8. Thereafter on 5th October, 1994, an FIR bearing No.215/94 came to be registered stating that As per the Order No.8384/94 dated 27.09.1994 issued by the Kerela High Court, a letter has been sent to the Trivandrum District Judge. As per the direction of the District Court, Trivandrum, the following charges have been imposed in SC No.147/90 for replacing Mo2 (Jetty), hence the accused cheated the Court by destroying the evidence and committed the offence. It was further stated that the FIR pertains to replacing the Mo2 by an unknown person. 9. Subsequently, a chargesheet came to be filed on 24th March, 2006 against one Mr. Jose, the Thondi clerk of the Court and Advocate Antony Raju under Sections 120(B), 420, 201, 193, 217 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter IPC . Allegedly, these accused persons conspired together with the intention and preparation to cause the disappearance of evidence (Mo2). It stated that Accused No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egally sustainable, as it contravened the legal requirements under Section 195 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court categorically distinguished the decision of this Court in CBI v. M. Sivamani (2017) 14 SCC 855 (2-Judge Bench) on the point that the procedural distinctions between judicial and administrative orders are underscored by this case, where the CB-CID had initiated the investigation based on a judicial order issued by the Madras High Court, rather than an administrative order, as in the present case. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the written submissions filed. The issues which arise for consideration of this Court are: i. Whether M.R. Ajayan, appellant in SLP(Crl.)No.4887 of 2024 has the locus standi to prefer this SLP against the impugned order? ii. Whether the High Court has rightly held the proceedings in question to be hit by the bar under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.? iii. Independent of the above, whether the High Court could have ordered de novo steps to be taken against the appellant? DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 15. Coming to the first issue at hand, concerning the locus standi of Mr. M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ails in this regard and the party having bona fide connection with the cause of action, who is aggrieved by the order of the Court cannot be left at the mercy of the State and without any option to approach the appellate Court for seeking justice. 24. After considering the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents, in the light of the material placed on record, we are of the view that the appellants have locus standi to maintain this appeal. From the material placed on record, it is clear that the appellants have precise connection with the matter at hand and thus, have locus to maintain this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants has rightly placed reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court, namely, P.S.R. Sadhanantham [P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, (1980) 3 SCC 141 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 649] and other decisions of this Court in Ramakant Rai [Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 445], Esher Singh [Esher Singh v. State of A.P., (2004) 11 SCC 585 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 113], Rama Kant Verma [Rama Kant Verma v. State of U.P., (2008) 17 SCC 257 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 734]. Further, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code ( 45 of 1860), namely, section 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (I) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of Sub-Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch which has a direct bearing on the discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or has a direct correlation with the proceedings in a Court of justice, affecting the administration of justice. v. The provision only creates a bar against taking cognizance of an offence in certain specified situations except upon complaint by the Court. vi. To attract the bar under Section 195(1)(b), the offence should have been committed when the document was in custodia legis or in the custody of the Court concerned. vii. The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) cannot be thought to be applied when the forgery of a document has happened prior to its production in Court. The bar only applies in case the enumerated offence takes place after the production of the document or in evidence in any Court. viii. High Courts can exercise jurisdiction and power enumerated under Section 195 on an application being made to it or suo-motu, whenever the interest of justice so demands. ix. In such a case, where the High Court as a superior Court directs a complaint to be filed in respect of an offence covered under Section 195(1)(b)(i), the bar for taking cognizance, will not apply. 22. In the instant case, the Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... izance of the offence in question. Direction of the High Court is on a par with the direction of an administrative superior public servant to file a complaint in writing in terms of the statutory requirement. The protection intended by the section against a private person filing a frivolous complaint is taken care of when the High Court finds that the matter was required to be gone into in public interest. Such direction cannot be rendered futile by invoking Section 195 to such a situation. Once the High Court directs investigation into a specified offence mentioned in Section 195, bar under Section 195(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service. The view taken by the High Court will frustrate the object of law and cannot be sustained. ( Emphasis supplied ) 26. The High Court differentiated the judgment of this Court in Sivamani (supra), to the facts of the case herein, stating that in this case, the final report came to be filed on the basis of an administrative order and not a judicial one. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the High Court on this aspect. 27. As discussed above, the initiation of the present proceedings in the present case, was from the judgment and order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted: 33. The principles that emerge from the decisions of this Court on retrial can be formulated as under: 33.1. The appellate Court may direct a retrial only in exceptional circumstances to avert a miscarriage of justice. 33.6. The following are some instances, not intended to be exhaustive, of when the Court could order a retrial on the ground of miscarriage of justice: (a) The trial court has proceeded with the trial in the absence of jurisdiction; (b) The trial has been vitiated by an illegality or irregularity based on a misconception of the nature of the proceedings; and (c) The prosecutor has been disabled or prevented from adducing evidence as regards the nature of the charge, resulting in the trial being rendered a farce, sham or charade. 33. More recently, in Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar Anr. (2-Judge Bench) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 984 , this Court summarized the power of an Appellate Court to order retrial: 8. Every trial is a march towards the truth. It is the primary duty of the Court to search for the truth using the procedural law as its tool. Such a procedural law may have a substantive part extending certain inalienable rights to both, the accused and the victim. By n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
