DRUGS INSPECTOR TRIVANDRUM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During my recent visit to the Court of the District Magistrate,. Trivandrum, it came to my notice that in Calendar Case No. 92 of 1965, decided on July, 11, 1967, on a complaint instituted by the Drugs Inspector, Special Intelligence Branch, Trivandrum - 3, and prosecuted through an Assistant Public Prosecutor, the District Magistrate has fined the accused 1 and 2 Rs. 250/- each, and the 5th accused Rs. 350/-, and ordered further:

(2.) The efficacy of a law and its social utility depend largely on the manner and the extent of its application by the Courts. A good law badly administered may violate its social purpose, and if overlooked in practice fail in purpose and utility. It is a sad fact that this Section is seldom taken note of by the magistracy in this State and I had occasion to tell some magistrates that this Section has a social purpose to serve and has to be applied in appropriate cases. Indeed, the primary purpose of criminal justice may be not the adjustment of economic relations, but the administration of sanctions against individual offenders, ranging from monetary fines to long prison terms and, in extreme cases, capital punishment. But it cannot be said that the adjustment of financial losses is not the concern of criminal law at all. S.545 Crl P. C. expressly provides for that, as it reads:

(3.) The instant case is one of the misapplication of the S.545 Crl. P. C. The order of the District Magistrate is to pay the complainant, Drugs Inspector, Rs. 425 "towards expenses of the prosecution''. He does not appear to have adverted to the factum of any expenditure on the part of the complainant; but directs 50% of the fine to be paid to the Drugs Inspector. Counsel for the Drugs Inspector frankly conceded that little expense has been met by the Drugs Inspector in the prosecution of this case, which came by way of his official function, and has been conducted through a Public Prosecutor. The Section requires the Magistrate to award, out of the fine realised, "expenses properly incurred in the prosecution." Needless to say that if the Drugs Inspector has not met any expense out of his pocket, he is not entitled to any compensation under S.545(1)(a) Crl. P.C.