HARIHARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise an order passed by the Division First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum, refusing to discharge an accused person who contended that the Police charge disclosed no offence against him. The petitioner who was the Director of Publicity in the State resigned his office and the Government first passed an order on 16.9.'49 permitting him to resign with effect from the afternoon of Monday, 19th September 1949. By an order of even date the Assistant Information Officer was directed to take charge of all the articles belonging to Government in the possession of the Director and on the 17th admittedly almost all the articles were actually handed over. A voucher signed by both the officers evidence it. Subsequently however Government would seem to have changed their mind regarding the permission granted to the Director resign and placed him under suspension with effect from the forenoon of Monday, 19th September 1949. On that morning the Police searched his house. Two cameras which the Director had obtained from the Palace were recovered during the search. In due course the Police laid a charge sheet against him stating that his retention of these articles was dishonest and that it amounted to an offence under S.410 of the Travancore Penal Code. The charge proceeded to state that a typewriter was also retained by the Director and that retention also constituted an offence of criminal breach of trust by a public servant. The typewriter was however not recovered and what was stated before us on behalf of the petitioner was that it was really lost.

(2.) The petition the accused filed before the lower court stated inter alia that the failure to return the cameras covered during search or the typewriter referred to in the charge will not constitute any criminal offence and that he should therefore on that sole ground be discharged. The lower court rejected that petition and hence this revision.

(3.) It is undoubted law that with a view to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice this court can in the exercise of its inherent power quash any criminal proceedings pending before a subordinate court. It is that power that is invoked here. It is recognised on all hands that this power can be exercised with reference to a case where the complaint or the Police charge sheet as the case may be, discloses no offences at all against the accused. By the order permitting the accused to resign he was to remain in office until the afternoon of the 19th September. The search was conducted on the morning of that date. The voucher referred to earlier does not purport to say that all articles belonging to the Government in the possession of the Director have been handed over. It is only the articles falling within a particular category or group that were handed over and no reference whatever is made in the order to the Assistant Information Officer that he should take charge from the Director also the articles the latter got from the Palace. In these circumstances it would not be possible for a court to say that the accused retained the two cameras recovered from him in search with any dishonest intention. The prosecution has no case that he had disposed of or otherwise dealt with the typewriter referred to. Regard being had to all these we think no useful purpose will be served by wasting public time and public money in pursuing the prosecution. The learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the State really found himself unable to support the lower court's order refusing to discharge the accused. When he stated before us that from the circumstances of the case it was difficult to attribute a dishonest intent to the accused he in our opinion truly maintained the high traditions of the responsible office he holds under the State. We set aside the lower court's order under revision and quash the proceedings (C.C. 104/1950) pending before the Division First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum, against the petitioner herein. He is discharged of the offence levelled against him in that case.