GOPALAN D Vs. SHANTHI B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Madras District Social Welfare Association, which is an association founded with the object of purifying public life and also exposing corrupt elements. THIS application seeks to implead the petitioner as a party respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2854 of 1988 pending in this court. In Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2854 of 1988, the first respondent is the petitioner and the second respondent is the respondent. The second respondent has filed a complaint against the first respondent before the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic offences, Egmore, Madras, alleging that the first respondent who had been granted a loan of Rs. 4,65,000 on April 17, 1986 by the A.I.A.D.M.K. party and admittedy received by her on April 18, 1986, violated Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, the contravention of which she is punishable under Section 276DD of the said Act. The complaint filed in March, 1988, has been taken on file against the first respondent in E.O.C.C. No. 207 of 1988.

(2.) THE first respondent, during the end of April, 1988, filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2854 of 1988 on the file of this court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in E.O.C.C. No. 207 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and to quash the proceedings therein for the reasons stated in the petition. It is also seen from the said petition that, among other contentions, the constitutional validity of Section 269SS read with Section 276DD of the Act has been challenged as being ultra vires, offending article 14 of the Constitution of India. On April 29, 1988, this court admitted Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2854 of 1988 and notice returnable by June 15, 1988, was ordered. In Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2855 of 1988, stay of all further proceedings pending in the trial court was ordered. In Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2856 of 1988, the appearance of the first respondent before the trial court, pending disposal of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2854 of 1988, was also ordered. THE petitions were again listed on June 21, 1988, on which date this court directed posting of these petitions after service on the respondent.

(3.) THIRU N. C. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, refuting the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and there is no public interest involved in these proceedings. The Income-tax Act is a self-contained code and the power to prosecute the offenders has been vested in the Commissioner of Income-tax at whose instance alone the complaint for an offence for which the first respondent is being prosecuted can be validly maintained. He would refer to Section 279 of the Income-tax Act, which relates to the prosecution being launched at the instance of the Commissioner taking within its fold Section 276DD of the Act for the alleged commission of which offence the first respondent is being prosecuted. He would also refer to Section 279(2) of the Act which preserves the power in the Commissioner to compound the offence either before or after the institution of the proceedings. He further contended that the constitutional validity of Section 269SS read with Section 276DD has been challenged and the prosecution cannot be launched or conducted as a public interest litigation in view of the statutory bar. Learned senior counsel would refer to the decisions reported in S. Dyramar v. State by the Inspector of Police, (1985) LW (Crl.) 219, and Saravanabhavanandam v. P. S. S. Murugaiyyan, (1986) LW (Crl.) 165, wherein Sengottuvelan, J., while considering the right of a third party relation of the victim of the offence being impleaded in bail and anticipatory bail petitions, had observed that there was no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to implead a third party in a prosecution case. The close relations to the aggrieved party were entitled only to assist the prosecution case. The close relations of the aggrieved party were entitled only to the assist the prosecution and cannot be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The observations of Sengottuvelan J. are also based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak , wherein the following observation has been made (at page 723 of AIR 1984) :