GRAM SABHA LAKHANPUR PANTI Vs. RAM DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the order dated 18-8-92, passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in criminal revision No. 2 of 1992 whereby he has rejected the application 11 Kha moved by the Gaon Sabha, the applicant for its impleadment as a party in the revision aforesaid.

(2.) In short, the facts of the case are that the proceedings under S. 133, Criminal Procedure Code, were instituted at the instance of the applicant for removal of unauthorised constructions raised by opposite party No. 1 Ram Deo on the public path and the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. These proceedings under S. 133, Cr. P.C. terminated against opposite party No. 1, who feeling aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meja, Allahabad, filed Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1992 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Allahabad, which came up for hearing before the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad. In that revision Ram Deo did not implead the Gaon Sabha as a party though the proceedings under S. 133, Cr. P.C. were initiated at its instance and accordingly the Gaon Sabha moved an application for its impleadment as a party in that revision. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge rejected that application (11 Kha) on the ground that Gaon Sabha is not a necessary party to the revision nor the Statute require the complainant to be impleaded as a party in the revision before the Sessions Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant strenuously argued that the applicant, which is a Gaon Sabha, has an independent capacity to sue or to be sued in the Court of law. It can own, purchase or sell its property. It exercises its power through Pradhan/Chairman. The proceedings under S. 133, Cr. P.C. were initiated on the application of the applicant and the applicant prosecuted opposite party No. 1 and succeeded in establishing its case before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and got the order of removal of unauthorised constructions passed by the trial Magistrate, therefore, in the revision before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge it has got a right to defend itself through a counsel of its choice and not through the D.G.C. (Criminal), who can represent only the State of U.P. and not a private party. In case the order passed by the Magistrate is reversed by the revisional Court, the applicant will be prejudiced. He further argued that the applicant being an aggrieved party could file the revision in the High Court against the order of the lower revisional Court and the present revision is fully competent. In support of the above submissions the learned counsel for the applicant invited attention of the Court to the provisions of Sec. 383 of the Criminal Procedure Code and on its strength argued that if the appeal is filed from a judgment of conviction in a case instituted on the complaint, the complainant is required to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. He also contended that once the accused is convicted and sentenced for an offence by the trial Court, in appeal the complainant's interest is looked after by the State but even then the Statutes require an opportunity of hearing to the complainant in the case instituted on the complaint. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, Gaon Sabha was not only proper but necessary party in the revision before the lower revisional Court and the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge has gravely erred in rejecting its application for impleadment as a party in the revision before him.