DAMODAR LAXMAN PEDNEKAR Vs. UMAKANT LAXMAN NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Asha Dessai, the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant, who has styled himself as original complainant, and the learned Public Prosecutor Ms. Coutinho, on behalf of respondent No. 4.

(2.) The applicant herein was a driver of a fire tender and the accused, (Respondent No. 4 herein), was the driver of a motorcycle. An accident took place between the said two vehicles, as a result of which, the applicant informed the police and the police after investigation, filed a case against the said accused being C.C. No. 201/2002/A under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accused came to be acquitted by an Order dated 28.02.2006 of the learned J.M.F.C., Panaji. The State Government has chosen not to file an appeal against the said acquittal of the accused. The applicant, styling himself to be the original complainant, has filed the present application for Leave to Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(3.) The short question before the Court is whether a first informant, who is not a Complainant, as understood under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can file an application for leave to Appeal To contend that he can file, on behalf of the applicant, reliance is placed on a decision of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Rana v. State of Haryana, 1996 Cri. L.J. 3060 In that case, the learned Division Bench observed that the word 'complainant' used in Section 378(4) of the Code, could not be given such a restricted meaning and could not be construed so as to exclude the victim or the sufferer and who had first hand information of the incident in question. The Division Bench observed that the concept of locus standi in relation to the criminal jurisprudence had to be given a wider meaning. The scheme of the Code was such so as to include a successor and even any person who might not be the actual complainant before the Court but had suffered during that incident and was a victim of the assailants. The investigating agency could be put into motion even by a stranger to the occurrence. From the settle principles of law it is clear that is the right to continue the cause which would form the basis for permitting a person other than the actual complainant who might die in the course of the proceedings to continue the subsequent proceedings. Reference was made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, AIR 1984 SC 718 wherein the Apex Court had observed thus: