SANKARAN NAIR Vs. MADHAVAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the complainant in C. C. No. 358 of 1973 on the file of the 1st Class Magistrate, Nedumangad. The application is made under S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The original private complaint disclosed offences punishable under S. 143 and 379 of the indian Penal Code. The accusation against the accused was that they trespassed into the paddy field of the petitioner and harvested crops. The trial court found accused 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 guilty under S. 379 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them and sentenced them to six months rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted for the offence under S. 143 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1974 before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum . The appellate court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence. Against this conviction and sentence a revision was filed in this court. THIS court as per its order dated 19 71976 set aside the conviction and sentence and allowed the criminal Revision Petition.

(2.) THE prayer in the present application is to set aside the judgment of this Court in Criminal R P. No. 258 of 1975. THE reason set out in the affidavit in support of the application is that the petitioner, who was the complainant before the trial court, was not made a patty in the revision. According to the petitioner it was deliberately made to get a judgment behind his back. According to the petitioner, in a criminal revision petition, it is mandatory to make the complainant also a party and an order passed without the complainant being on the party array is not a proper order, since such a revision petition it-sell is not entertainable in law Reliance for this contention is placed on S. 401 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (new Code) which reads as follows: "no order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. " (underlining is mine) THE petitioner's counsel would contend that the complainant comes within the expression'other person in the said Section.

(3.) NOW, let us see whether S. 401 (2) of the Criminal procedure Code, even if applicable, will help the petitioner. In a crime, the party really wronged is the State, even though the immediate victim is an individual. It is an act harmful to the society. Such acts ordinarily are proceeded against by the State, so that the offender may be punished Crimes, therefore, are different from civil wrongs. Even though a criminal proceeding is originally initiated by a private individual, the State has an interest in it. Therefore where a case initiated by a complainant ends in conviction and the matter is taken up in appeal and revision, the real party to be heard is the State and not the individual who is harmed. The object of punishment is to protect the Society by preventing the actual offender from committing further offences. It is the State that is primarily interested in preventing the actual offender from repeating the crime. In Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar (1966 S. C. 911 at 917) the Supreme Court observes: "barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book. "