DEENANATH SINGH Vs. OMPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the revisional order dated 30-5-2002 passed in Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2002 by the Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur whereby the order dated 11-4-2002 passed by the C.J.M. Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, in case No. 1479 of 97 has been affirmed.

(3.) IN support of his contention, Shri Sinha, counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Saodhan S/o Mitthulal Vs. State1 which has been considered by the Court below. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that it is the prosecution and the accused who have right. The complainant has no such right. The application in this case has not been made by a total stranger but by the complainant. In this connection, the law laid down in the case of R. Rathinam Vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai2 needs to be seen. In that case, the bail was granted to certain persons. A group of practicing Advocates presented petitions before Chief Justice of the High Court seeking initiation of suo motu proceedings for cancellation of bail. The Chief Justice placed the petitions before a Division bench. The Division Bench refused to exercise the suo motu powers on the ground that the petition submitted by the Advocates was not maintainable. It was held that the frame of sub-section (2) of Section 439 indicates that it is a power conferred on the courts mentioned therein. It was held that there was nothing to indicate that the said power can be exercised only if the State or investigating agency or a Public Prosecutor moves by a petition. It was held that the power so vested in the High Court can be invoked either by the State or by any aggrieved party. It was held that the said power could also be exercised suo motu by the High Court. It was held that, therefore, any member of the public, whether he belongs to any particular profession or otherwise could move the High Court to remind it of the need to exercise its power suo motu. It was held that there was no barrier either in Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code or in any other law which inhibits a person from moving the High Court to have such powers exercised suo motu. It was held that if the High Court considered that there was no need to cancel the bail then it could dismiss the petition. It was held that it was always open to the High Court to cancel the bail if it felt that there were sufficient enough reasons for doing so.