Case title:
N Syamasundara Naidu Vs. V Dakshinamoorthy and others
Date of Order:
21/06/2022
Bench:
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy
Parties:
N. Syamasundara Naidu – Petitioner
1) V. Dakshinamoorthy – Respondents
2) B. H. Himagiribabu
Subject
The authority of an assistant prosecutor appointed in a private capacity by the complainant in benefit of the case and their authority to provide official advice and influence has been discussed in this case.
Facts
- A plot of land measuring 3 Acres and 76 cents belonging to N. Syamasundara Naidu the plaintiff in the village of Alandur was subject to a conspiracy to illegally take over the land owing to the plaintiff’s absence (who was in Tirupati) by the two accused who forged a fake sales agreement for the above-said property and filed a civil suit and tried to trespass onto the same.
- When this scheme was brought to the appellant’s knowledge, the accused threatened him with his life.
- A case was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Vellore under the charges of Section 120(B), 419, 420, 423, 447, 465, 468, 471, and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, owing to the final report filed by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (ALGSC) Vellore.
- The petitioner was permitted to appoint an external private counsel to support the government-appointed public prosecutor.
- After the culmination of witness examination, when the issue was forwarded to the Investigation Officer, the petitioner filed for a change in charges under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to add extra charges under Sections 34, 109, 467, and 474 of the Indian Penal Code.
- The application was opposed by both the respondent/accused and the police who issued several counter statements.
- After a thorough reread of Section 301(2) of the CrPC, the court held that a prosecutor assigned in a private capacity does not possess the authority to conduct an independent prosecution.
- The judgment of B.Janakiramaiah Chetty Vs. A.K.Parthasarathiwas relied upon by the trial court in which it was ruled that the arguments of a private pleader cannot be accepted once the process of evidence compilation and the prosecutor’s arguments are finished, thus the application to insert additional charges under Section 216 of the CrPC is invalid.
Judgment
- Applicability of Section 301 of the CrPC itself has been denounced by the high court on the grounds that between the sections 301 and 302, the former holds validity only in courts other than the magistrate court, while the latter talks about validity in magistrate courts as clearly stated in the provision and in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Hukam Chand and Another.
- And as stated in the case of Rekha Murarka Vs. The State of West Bengal if it so happens that the victim’s appointed pleader finds irregularities or something absent from the arguments then he is fully authorized to bring it to the notice of the court, upon finding relevance the judge may decide actions accordingly.
- In the present case the magistrate’s order disregarding P. W. 1, the victim’s, application for bringing about additional charges under Section 261 is not valid as there is scope for changing charges until the judgment is passed. The same was held in the case of Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(2020) 12 SCC 467]
- Mere application for the charges to be changed does not insinuate the hijacking of the prosecution by a private pleader as reiterated in the case of Anant Sinha Vs. The state of Haryana and Another [(2016) 6 SCC 105]. The court also needs to examine the changes suggested closely and determine how they affect the defendant and the respondent and if they are based on newly discovered facts.
Conclusion
In this case, the court was convinced that the charges the petitioner was seeking to add did not base themselves on a newly discovered fact and that they were just different interpretations of previously examined facts.
The court ruled that charges could be applied and the court could proceed as if they were a part of the initial batch of charges.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
