N R GOVINARAJI Vs. S VENKATACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure code to set aside the conviction which had been recorded by the Magistrate after trial under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code to one Rajasekaran and direct that a proceeding be initiated against the present appellant - Govindaraji who, according to the High Court, was the real accused. The occurrence itself took place on 22-12-1995 and the charge-sheet was submitted therein on 22-2-1996 against the said Rajasekaran on the allegation that he was driving the vehicle and on account of negligent driving, the accident occurred. The Magistrate convicted Rajasekaran under Section 304- a by order dated 27-2-1997. Thereafter the complainant moved the High Court under section 482 of the Cri. P. C. alleging therein that Rajasekaran was not the real accused but it was Govindaraji who was driving the vehicle on the relevant date and, therefore, the conviction of Rajasekaran should be set aside instead Govindaraji be proceeded. The High Court was persuaded to accept this contention of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Having interfered with the conviction of Rajasekaran and having directed to initiate criminal proceedings against Govindaraji, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no provision in the criminal Procedure Code which could confer power on the High Court to direct a further enquiry within the meaning of section 173 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code after conclusion of trial inasmuch as the trial came to an end on convicting rajasekaran on 27-2-1997. He further contended that since there were no materials in the trial which could have been utilised for exercising power under Section 319, the High Court committed error for considering the materials which were supposed to have brought in pursuance of further investigation by the investigating agency an thereafter invoking its power under section 482 of the Cri. P. C. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that since the High Court has come to the conclusion that a wrong man has been convicted and real man has remained outside, it has invoked its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cri. P. C. , therefore, that order of the High Court had not interfered with. Having examined the rival submissions and having examined the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are persuaded to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant inasmuch as howsoever wide power under Section 482 of the Cri. P. C. but it cannot be exercised in contravention of all the provisions of the criminal Procedure Code. Once the trial has come to an end by convicting rajasekaran under Section 304-A, it could not be open for the investigating agency to further investigate into the matter in pursuance to a complaint of the complainant or a complaint being made by some other person. This being the position, there does not remain any material on the basis of which the High Court could have come to the conclusion that a wrong man has been convicted and the real accused is still at large and then directed criminal proceedings against Govindaraji. The complainant could have filed a complaint under section 200 and then produced the relevant materials. In that case, the Magistrate could have proceeded with the complainant's case. That having not been done in the present case, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the impugned order of the high Court cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, set aside the same and allow this appeal.