SHAILABALA DEVI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in criminal revision by Mt. Sri-mad Shailabala Devi, filed in the interest of the accused Bisheshwar Prasad Sinha, her son. The application came up for hearing before a Single Judge who referred it to a Bench of two Judges and the latter have referred the case to a Full Bench as several important questions of law are involved. The accused was arrested for an offence under Section 17(2), Criminal Law Amendment Act, and was prosecuted. At the trial in the Magistrate's Court he said that he did not want to take any part in the proceedings of the case, he did not want it to be adjourned, did not want to cross- examine any witnesses and that he had nothing to say in his defence. He was convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200.

(2.) The accused had a right of appeal to the Sessions Court, but did not choose to avail himself of that right nor did he attempt to file any application in revision in this Court. But the present application in revision was filed by his mother obviously in the interest of the accused, challenging the propriety of the conviction. The learned Single Judge before whom the case first came up has referred to several cases of this Court and enumerated a number of points which were raised by way of objections by the Crown Counsel. The first question is whether a third party who is a total stranger to the criminal proceedings, has any locus standi to file an application in revision on behalf of or in the interest of an accused; and a further question is whether such a person can be represented by counsel.

(3.) It is an ordinary principle of law that a person who can go up to a superior Court, either in appeal or in revision, should be a person who was a party to the proceedings in the Court below. If he is a total stranger, he has no locus standi to move the higher Court. It seems to me that an application filed by a third party should not be treated as an application in criminal revision filed under Section 435, Criminal P.C. An application of this kind is, in my opinion, not an application contemplated by Sub-section 4 of that section. It is merely an application for bringing some matters to the knowledge of the Court. There is no doubt that in at least two cases this High Court has acted upon an application filed by a third party, but as the question was neither directly raised nor decided I can take it that the applicant was treated as if supplying information to the Court on which the Court may Act.