SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Kar) 291

Karnataka High Court
KERALA TRANSPORT CO. - Appellant
Versus
D.S.SOMASHEKHAR - Respondent
Decided On : 09-25-81
CRI.R.P. : 220 of 1979

Advocates:
A.SHAMANNA, B.S.KESHAVA IYENGAR, M.M.GAGADHAR, M.V.DEVARAJ, N.SAMPATH KUMAR, S.A.PATTANNA

The primary duty to prosecute the accused lies with the State, and the criminal law should not be used for private vengeance.

Headnote:

Revision Petitions - Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code - Ss. 120-B, 477-A, 420 and 109 - The court dismissed the petitions filed by the original complainant challenging the order discharging the accused of the aforesaid offences under S. 239 Cr. PC. holding that the State, as the complainant, has the primary duty to prosecute the accused. The court found that the criminal law should not be used for private vengeance and that the original complainant, as a private party, has no locus standi to pursue the petitions. The petitions were dismissed as being not maintainable.

Fact of the Case:

The Detective Inspector filed charge-sheets against the accused for criminal conspiracy, cheating, and falsification of documents. The accused were discharged of the offences under Ss. 120-B, 477-A, 420 and 420 read with S. 109 of the IPC by the Magistrate. The original complainant filed petitions challenging the legality and correctness of the order discharging the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State, as the complainant, has the primary duty to prosecute the accused and that the original complainant, as a private party, has no locus standi to pursue the petitions. The court held that the criminal law should not be used for private vengeance and dismissed the petitions as being not maintainable.

Issues: The main issue was whether the original complainant, as a private party, had the right to challenge the order discharging the accused of the offences under Ss. 120-B, 477-A, 420 and 420 read with S. 109 of the IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State, as the complainant, has the primary duty to prosecute the accused and that the original complainant, as a private party, has no locus standi to pursue the petitions. The court emphasized that the criminal law should not be used for private vengeance.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions filed by the original complainant challenging the order discharging the accused of the offences under Ss. 120-B, 477-A, 420 and 420 read with S. 109 of the IPC, holding that the State, as the complainant, has the primary duty to prosecute the accused and that the original complainant, as a private party, has no locus standi to pursue the petitions.

M. NAGAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THESE petitions by the original complainant are directed against the common order dated 19-2-1979 passed by the judicial Magistrate First Class, Tiptur in cc Nos. 1051 to 1054, 1057 to 1060/1977 and 103 to 111 and 156 to 175 of 1978 discharging the accused-respondents of the offences under Ss. 120-B, 477-A, 420 and 420 read with S. 109 of the IPC. IA. No. 1 in each of the petitions is filed by A-1 under S. 482 of the Crlpc. for dismissal of the aforesaid petitions on the ground that a private party has no locus standi to prosecute the above revision petitions. For proper appreciation of the grounds urged by the accused in the said application regarding maintainability of the revision petitions, it is necessary to advert to the facts leading to the revision petitions in brief.

( 2 ) THE Detective Inspector (FS) COD. Bangalore filed 37 charge-sheets before the trial Court against the accused, who are eight in number, for offences under ss. 120-B, 420, 477-A and 109 of the IPC. A-1 to A-3 are the "partners of D. S. Mallappa and Sons, D. S. Mallappa and co. , and Deshmudre and Co. , carrying on copra business at Tiptur. Accused 4 (A), (B), (C), (D) were in charge of the kerala Transport Company/bhoruka road Lines Pvt. Ltd,/transport Corporation of India Ltd. , Tiptur. branch offices and A-5 was the Branch Manager of the state Bank of Mysore, Tiptur Branch at the r61evant point of time. The case of the prosecution is that between 14-1-1976 and 12-3-1976, A-1 to A-3 entered into criminal conspiracy with A-4 (A) to (D) and A-5 with an intention of cheating the State Bank of Mysore, Tiptur Branch, falsified the books of the said Transport companies and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, A-4 (A) to (D) and A-5 wilfully and with intent to defraud, prepared and issued false lorry receipts to a-1 to A-3 which receipts or way-bills were purported to have been issued for receipt of copra for being despatched to customers of D. S. Mallappa and Sons, d. S. Mallappa and Co. , and Deshmudre and Co. , even though no goods were delivered to them by A-1 to A-3 for despatch to those customers and as such falsified the books of the said Transport companies. In pursuance of the said conspiracy A-1 to A-3 also drew up several hundies on the upcountry customers of D. S. Mallappa and Sons, D. S. Mallappa and Co. , and Deshmudre and Co.- and dishonestly presented the same along with the aforesaid false lorry receipts or way bills to the State Bank of Mysore, tiptur Branch for a total sum of Rs. 48,40,000 and thereby cheated the said bank. A-5. who was the then Branch manager of the said Bank knowing or having reason to believe that the lorry receipts were not supported by despatch of goods, abetted A-1 to A-3 for cheating the State Bank of Mysore and also the aforesaid Lorry Transport companies by allowing to discount the said bills and crediting Rs. 48. 00,000 to the account of d. S. Mallappa and Sons and as such A-1 to a-4 (A) to (D) and A-5 have committed offences punishable under Ss. 120-B. 477-A, 420 and S. 420 read with S. 109 of indian Penal Code.

( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate after hearing arguments of both the learned assistant Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel appearing for the accused in all the 37 cases, before framing of the charges and after considering the documents and the rival contentions of both the parties, discharged the accused in all the aforesaid cases under S. 239 Cr. PC. of the offences punishable under Ss. 120-B 477-A, 420 and S. 420 read with S. 109 of the IPC. holding that by and large as two views are equally possible in the said cases and the evidence placed on record could raise some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused A-1, A-4 (A) to (D) and A-5 are fully within their rights to get themselves discharged. Aggrieved by the said order, the original complainant Kerala Transport Co. has filed the above petitions challenging the legality and correctness of the order dischargin



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top