Back
1985 Supreme(Bom) 252
BOMBAY HIGH COURT PANAJI BENCH (GOA)
Dr. G. F. COUTO, J.
Navinchandra Gandhi, Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Pushpasen Kapadia and another, Respondents.
Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 25 of 1985
Decided on : 25-9-1985.
Advcoates appeared:
J. Dias, Sr. Counsel, with Miss. Bevinda Dourado, for Petitioner; G.V. Tamba (for No. 1) and G.U. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor (for No. 2.), for Respondents.
A person who is not personally and directly affected by an offence is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 469(1)(b) of the CrPC and does not have locus standi to file a complaint under Section 171H of the IPC.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 469(1)(B) - LIMITATION FOR FILING COMPLAINT - AGGRIEVED PERSON - INTERPRETATION - ELECTION OFFENCE - STANDING TO FILE COMPLAINT - CONDONATION OF DELAY - SECTION 473 - DISCRETION OF COURT - PUBLIC INTEREST - ENDS OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed against the petitioner under Section 171H of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for publishing an advertisement in a newspaper during an election campaign without the candidate's permission. The complainant was the election agent of the opposing candidate. The petitioner challenged the complaint on the grounds that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint and that the complaint was time-barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant did not have locus standi to file the complaint because he was not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 469(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court further held that the complaint was time-barred and that the delay in filing the complaint could not be condoned under Section 473 of the CrPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant had locus standi to file the complaint under Section 171H of the IPC? 2. Whether the complaint was time-barred and whether the delay in filing the complaint could be condoned under Section 473 of the CrPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complainant did not have locus standi to file the complaint because he was not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 469(1)(b) of the CrPC. The court reasoned that the complainant was not personally and directly affected by the alleged offence and that he had not suffered any prejudice as a result of the petitioner's actions. 2. The court held that the complaint was time-barred because it was filed more than six months after the alleged offence was committed. The court further held that the delay in filing the complaint could not be condoned under Section 473 of the CrPC because the ends of justice did not require the condonation of the delay.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application and set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.
2. The learned Magistrate, Diu, by his impugned order dt. 7th Aug. 1985, held that the complaint was within time and was covered by cl. (b) of S. 469 of the Cr. P.C. It is against the said order that the present revision application was preferred.
3. Mr. J. Dias, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order is manifestly erroneous and is liable to be set aside. He contended that the offence complained of is the one which is contemplated in S. 171-H of the I.P.C. The said offence is meant to maintain the purity of an election and, as such, only the authorities concerned with the process of the election have locus standi to file a criminal case under the said Section, for only they are aggrieved persons. He then contended that the complainant has no locus standi and could not be said to be an aggrieved person and, therefore, could not have prosecuted the petition. Then, the learned counsel invited my attention to the circumstance that the offence under S. 171-H of the I.P.C. is punishable with the fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- and that S. 468 of the Cr. P.C. provides a period of limitation of six months if the offence is punishable with fine only. The advertisement had been published in Dec. 1984 and the complaint was filed only on 27th July, 1985, that is beyond the period of limitation laid down in S. 468(2)(a) of the Cr. P.C. He further contended that the provision of S. 469(1)(b) of the Cr. P.C. is not attracted at all to the facts and circumstances of this case, for the complainant cannot be said to be an aggrieved person for the reasons already stated. In this respect, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Mysore High Court in State v. Gangamma AIR 1965 Mys. 235: (1965 (2) Cri LJ 376), and of the Madras High Court in Sulochana v. State Registrar of Chits, Madras 1978 Cri LJ 116. The learned counsel submitted that the expression "person aggrieved by the offence" occurring in S. 469(1)(b) and (c) of the Cr. P.C. should be given a limited or restricted coverage, that is to say, one who is personally and directly affected by an offence, and not to any member of the Public or even an officer who is charged with the duty of enforcing the pr
