Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 351 (MAD)

P. Hamza v. State

2014-02-13

C.T.SELVAM

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner challenges the order of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, passed in Crl.R.P.No. 31 of 2013 on 05.09.2013 confirming the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate I, Thirupathur, in C.M.P.No. 2105 of 2013 on 29.05.2013. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. The petitioner is facing prosecution in case registered in Crime No. 98 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police for offence under Section 420 IPC. In connection with the said case, the petitioner’s Innova Car as also a sum of Rs.60,000/- were seized from him and the petition seeking return thereof was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tirupathur, Vellore District, under orders in C.M.P.No. 2105 of 2013 dated 29.05.2013 on the reasoning that the petitioner failed to comply with the condition imposed on him while granting bail and that he sought return of his properties through his Power Agent thereby trying to evade the proceedings before the Court below. There against, the petitioner has moved a revision in Crl.R.P.No. 31 of 2013 before learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, which came to be dismissed under order dated 05.09.2013. In dismissing the revision, the lower Appellate Court interalia observed that the confession statement of the petitioner informs of his having purchased the Car by swindling public money. It held that though such position is contested, it would be a matter for trial. 4. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence alleged against the petitioner, that one of the co-accused had absconded, that there was no provision to hand over properties to Power Agent, which was the relief sought before it by the petitioner, the Court below has dismissed the petition. 4. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence alleged against the petitioner, that one of the co-accused had absconded, that there was no provision to hand over properties to Power Agent, which was the relief sought before it by the petitioner, the Court below has dismissed the petition. On this Court observing that though the petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petition in effect is one seeking a second revision which is barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., learned counsel for petitioner has placed before this Court the following judgments: (a) S.K. Mittal v. State (crl.M.C. 2082); (b) Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited v. State of Maharashtra ( 2009 (2) SCC 370 ) : (c) Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation ( 2005 (2) SCC 571 ) : (d) State through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navojt Sandhu ( 2003 (6) SCC 641 ); (e) Puran v. Rambilas ( 2001 (6) SCC 338 ) : (f) Rajathi v. Ganesan (1999 Crl.L.J. 3669 (1)) : (g) Jitendar Kumar Jain v. State of Delhi ( 1998 (8) SCC 770 ) : (h) Krishnan v. Krishnaveni ( 1997 (4) SCC 24 ) : (i) Selvamani v. Jaganathan (1991 MLJ (Cri) 171) : (j) Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State ( AIR 2003 SC 638 ) : (k) DS Thiya Ahamed v. State (2001 Crl.L.J. 3906) : (l) Thara v. The Inspector of Police (1998 Crl.L.J. 1881) : (m) Rajawar Ahamed Choudury v. Rajwar Ahamed (1982 Crl.L.J. NOC 161 (GAU) ; and (n) T. Narayanaswamy v. State (1993 Crl.L.J. 3109). 5. Amidst such judgment that which learned counsel sought to primarily press in favour of his contentions is the one in Krishnan v. Krishnaveni ( 1997 (4) SCC 24 1), a decision of the Full Bench of the Apex Court. Paragraph No. 10 of such judgment reads as follows: “10. Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397 (3) of the Code, a person – accused/complainant – cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397 (3) of Section 397(2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. So, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code. As stated earlier, it may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. The object of criminal trial is to render public justice, to punish the criminal and to see that the trial is concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witness fades out. The recent trend is to delay the trial and threaten the witness or to win over the witness by promise or inducement. These malpractices need to be curbed and public justice can be ensured only when trial is conducted expeditiously. 6. On consideration of rival submissions, this Court is to inform that this Court is unable to see any grave miscarriage of justice in the order of the Court below refusing return of vehicle to the petitioner/accused in circumstances where the confession of the petitioner/accused informs the purchase of vehicle through swindling of public money. The order of Court below will not lead to multiplicity and protraction of proceedings or unnecessary delay in trial. Conscious as we are that in an appropriate case, this Court would look beyond the bar contained in Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not one which merits such an exercise. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Original Petition shall stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.