JUDGMENT :

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) : –

1. A short question involved in the instant criminal revision is as to whether a trial court while acquitting an accused can pass an order of compensation against the employer of the said accused under any of the provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Opposite party No.2 PBK Menon was the Deputy Manager (Systems) of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, a Government company. On 18th December, 1993, the Central Bureau Investigation (hereafter referred to as CBI for short) registered a suo moto a FIR on the basis of source information against one Zenith Electronic and Power Systems and its proprietor N.V Pravakarn alleging, inter alia, that the said N.V Pravakarn had entered into a criminal conspiracy with some unknown persons inducing the Indian Oil Corporation, the petitioner herein to place an order for certain electronic gazettes and get payment for the same without the goods being supplied. The investigation of this case culminated in filing charge-sheet against the said N.V Pravakarn and others including the opposite party No.2 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. It will be not be out of place to mention here that after receiving the information of initiation of criminal case against opposite party No.2, a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him by the petitioner on 25th March, 1994. The said disciplinary proceeding was however not conducted because of the written request placed by the CBI on 4th August, 1995. Finally by an order dated 30th October, 1997 the disciplinary authority held that the charge against the opposite party No.2 was not proved.

4. During the pendency of the said criminal case and the disciplinary proceeding, the opposite party No.2 stopped attending his duties since 29th May, 1997. Finally, by an order dated 16th July, 2001 the competent authority of the petitioner company considering the long unauthorized absence of the opposite party No.2 held that he has abandoned his service under the petitioner company.

5. The above referred criminal case being Special Case No.11 of 1996 was disposed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas. In the said judgment the learned trial judge held as follows:-

“From the evidence on record it has transpired that Material Manager had the responsibility to place order, check bill and to issue certificate for payment. But CBI did not array the material manager as accused rather picked up an innocent man.

IOC failed to protect P.B.K. Menon, as admitted by PW-29 who accorded sanction for his prosecution, though he knew that nothing wrong was there on the part of said employee of IOC. PW-29 did not apply his mind and preferred to lend his signature on the paper placed by Manager, Vigilance.

Because of such mechanical response of PW-29 to the request of CBI to accord sanction, the accused P.B.K. Menon lost precious 24 years of his life, which was painted with tar. He lost his face in society. IOC officials cannot give him back those 24 years of his life but there should be some atonement on the part of IOC.

True it is a victim of crime is entitled to compensation u/s. 357 and 357A of the Cr.P.C. Law has not yet prescribed any such provision for an accused, implicated in a criminal case without any cogent reason, practically by force, at the cost of his precious right to a dignified life. “The time then has arrived, Glaucon, when like huntsmen we should surround the cover, and look sharp that justice does not slip away and pass out of sight and get lost...”(The Republic)

Do Judges of trial courts have an obligation to protect human rights?

In order to find out the answer I would like to quote following paragraph from the Hand book on Human Rights for Judicial Officers(NIHR) :-

“Judicial Obligation to Protection of Human Rights” Do Judges have an obligation to protect human rights?

The higher courts in India, lead by Apex Court, always answered