NARAYANAN NAMBIAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The simple but interesting and useful question posed for judicial scrutiny in this petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerning the scope and ambit of the powers of criminal courts under S.319 of the Code to proceed against any person, not being an accused, who appears to have committed the offence. The Section may with advantage be extracted here:

(2.) CC 69 of 1985 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cannanore was charge sheeted by the police only against three accused (respondents 3 to 5). Second respondent is the de facto complainant, who implicated the petitioner also in the first information statement, but the police omitted him. During trial the Magistrate examined second respondent as pw. 1 (there is a dispute whether he was examined in chief alone or fully examined). Thereafter on the application of the 2nd respondent the Magistrate ordered process against the petitioner as fourth accused on the satisfaction from the evidence that he also appears to have involvement in the crime. Crl. RP 107/86 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Sessions Judge and hence he requests this Court to quash the order in exercise of the inherent powers.

(3.) Many interesting aspects of the matter were discussed at the Bar and I am considering them only by way of academic importance. Even without considering those aspects this petition has only to be dismissed because no situation has arisen justifying interference under the inherent powers. The Magistrate was only acting within his powers under the Code on his judicial satisfaction that there are grounds for proceeding against the petitioner. Against the order the revisional jurisdiction was resorted to and failed. The satisfaction of the Magistrate or the opinion formed by him, if based on materials mentioned in S.319(1), is normally not liable to be disturbed even by the revisional court on the sufficiency of the material. Proceeding under S.319(1) does not mean that there is a finding that he committed the offence. The order only means that the evidence disclosed materials for taking cognizance of the offence as against him also and there ace sufficient grounds to issue process against him. As provided in S.319(4)(a) the effect of such an action is to have a fresh trial as against him in which event the witnesses examined will have to be reheard. No question of prejudice is involved except the ordeal of a trial in which he could show his innocence if that is the position. The order passed with jurisdiction and confirmed by the revisional court does not involve any question of illegality and there is no abuse of the process of court to be prevented or ends of justice being otherwise secured. Powers under S.482 could be exercised only sparingly in exceptional cases and it is not intended to authorise the High Court to sit in judgment over judicial pronouncements in order to find out their correctness or sufficiency of materials on which they are based.