STATE OF KERALA Vs. K SUDHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is at the instance of the State challenging the order of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum dt. 20.11.1998 in Crl. M. C. 2081/97. An important question of law that has come up for consideration was whether S.341 Cr.P.C. would contemplate an appeal at the instance of a person who has not filed any application to make a complaint under S.340 Cr. PC and the court has dropped the proceedings initiated suo motu.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly are as follows: On 12.4.95 Sri. E.P. Jayarajan, a sitting M. L. A. sustained injuries due to gunshot while he was travelling in Rajadhani Express from Delhi to Trivandrum. The Chirala Railway Police in Prakasam District of Andhra Pradesh registered Crime 14/95 for an offence under S.307 IPC. The respondent herein Sri. K. Sudhakaran, another sitting M. L. A., was the 3rd accused in the above crime. The respondent filed Crl. Petition No. 3509/95 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under S.438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail imposing conditions. The above conditions were periodically modified and on 29.12.95 the above court directed the respondent herein to report once in a month before the Superintendent of Police, Kannur District. It appears that the police filed a chargesheet in Crime 14/95 against two persons excluding the respondent herein. On 24.6.97 the de facto complainant Sri. E.P. Jayarajan filed a private complaint before the J. F. C. M. Court - III, Trivandrum, arraying the respondent herein as the 1st accused and six others as accused Nos. 2 to 7 alleging the commission of offences under S.120B and 307 IPC. The above complaint was forwarded to the police under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. and the Thampanoor Police registered Crime 148/97 for offences under S.120B and 307 IPC. On 4.7.97 the respondent herein filed Crl. M. C. 915/97 before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum, for anticipatory bail under S.438 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, passed an order closing the petition on the basis of the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the respondent shall not be arrested if he had complied with the condition imposed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. M. P. 3509/95. On 22.10.97 the respondent was arrested from Thalassery Railway Station by the police and he was brought to Trivandrum and was remanded to judicial custody. The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Shankhumukhom, filed C. M. P. 3953/97 before the J. F. C. M Court, Trivandrum, seeking police custody of the respondent from 23.10.97 to 29.10.97 and the above petition was dismissed on 24.10.97. The bail application moved by the respondent before the above court also was dismissed. On 23.10.97 the respondent filed Crl. M. C. 2081/97 before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum, seeking bail. On 25.10.97 the State filed Crl. R. P. 95/97 before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum challenging the order of the J.F.C. M. Court refusing police custody. The arrest of the respondent was sought to be justified by the learned Public Prosecutor by submitting that the respondent had never complied with the condition imposed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as he did not report before the Superintendent of Police, Kannur. On 24.10.97 an affidavit was filed by the respondent before the Sessions Court declaring that he had been strictly complying with the subsequently imposed condition of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that he should report before the Superintendent of Police, Kannur, once in a month and hence the arrest of the respondent was illegal. Crl. M. C. 2081/97 and Crl. R. P. 95/97 were heard and disposed of by a common order. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the police to interrogate the respondent at the Sub Jail, Trivandrum, from 9 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. on 28.10.97 and directed the release of the respondent on bail after such interrogation by the police. The above court imposed further conditions also while granting bail. Further, the Sessions Court found that the arrest of the respondent was legal and the respondent had not complied with the direction imposed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the affidavit filed by the respondent that he was complying with the direction imposed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court was false and hence an enquiry under S.340 Cr.P.C. has to be initiated. The above court further directed that a Crl. M. C. should be registered against the respondent for the enquiry under S.340 Cr.P.C. The above orders were challenged by the respondent in Cr. M. C. 3724/97 and 3738/97 before this Court. In the meanwhile O. P. 18557/97, a habeous corpus petition, was filed before this Court challenging the legality of the arrest and the same was dismissed by this court holding that the legality of the arrest has to be considered in Crl. M. C. 3724/97. This court by a common order in Crl. M. C. 3724/97 and 3738/97 modified the conditions imposed while granting bail and also set aside the finding of the Court below that the respondent herein has filed a false affidavit dated 24.10.97 before the Sessions Court and thereby committed offences under S.193 and 199 IPC. It was further directed that the Sessions Court was free to conduct an enquiry under S.340 Crl. P. C. and to satisfy itself whether the alleged offence had been committed in relation to the affidavit filed by the respondent dated 24.10.97 and whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to take further action in accordance with the procedure under S.340 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, passed the impugned order dropping the proceedings initiated suo motu by the above court earlier. The above order is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) Heard the learned Public Prosecutor Sri. K. Jayakumar and the Senior Counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar for the respondent.