Back
1997 Supreme(Mad) 1090
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SIDICKK
S. Association - Appellant
Versus
State and Others - Respondents
Crl.M.P. Nos. 4780 and 4781 of 1997
Decided On : 30 September 1997
Third parties, including associations, have no right of audience in criminal proceedings except for the informant, victim, complainant, or their close relations.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 301(2) - INTERVENTION BY THIRD PARTIES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - RIGHT OF AUDIENCE - CANCELLATION OF BAIL - Locus standi of third parties to intervene in a petition filed by the prosecution to cancel bail granted to accused - Held, third parties, including associations, have no right of audience in criminal proceedings except for the informant, victim, complainant, or their close relations - Section 301(2) Cr.P.C. only grants a limited right to an advocate instructed by a private person to assist the Public Prosecutor - Third parties cannot intervene independently of the Public Prosecutor, who represents the State in the petition to cancel bail - Allowing third parties to intervene would lead to confusion and chaos in criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
Two petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by the All India Democratic Women's Association and the Women Lawyer's Association at Madras, seeking permission to intervene in an application filed by the prosecution to cancel bail granted to certain accused in a criminal case. The petitioners claimed that they were assisting the victim woman and had a right to intervene in the interest of justice. The accused opposed the petitions, arguing that only the informant, victim, complainant, or their close relations have the right to intervene in such matters.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that third parties, including associations, have no right of audience in criminal proceedings except for the informant, victim, complainant, or their close relations. The court relied on several decisions of the Madras High Court, which have consistently held that only the informant, victim, complainant, or their close relations can intervene in matters like bail or cancellation of bail. The court also noted that Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C. only grants a limited right to an advocate instructed by a private person to assist the Public Prosecutor, and that such advocate cannot intervene independently of the Public Prosecutor.
Issues: 1. Whether third parties have a right to intervene in a petition filed by the prosecution to cancel bail granted to accused? 2. Whether Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C. grants third parties a right of audience in criminal proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that third parties, including associations, have no right of audience in criminal proceedings except for the informant, victim, complainant, or their close relations. The court relied on the following principles: * Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C. only grants a limited right to an advocate instructed by a private person to assist the Public Prosecutor. * Such advocate cannot intervene independently of the Public Prosecutor, who represents the State in the petition to cancel bail. * Allowing third parties to intervene would lead to confusion and chaos in criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both petitions filed by the Petitioners Associations, holding that third parties like the Petitioners Associations cannot be allowed to intervene in the petition filed by the State to cancel the bail already granted to some of the accused in this case.
The petition in Crl.M.P. No. 4780/97 in Crl. Appeal No. 677/97 is filed under S. 482 of Cr.P.C. by the All India Democratic Women's Association, Tamil Nadu Unit, represented by its Assistant Secretary V. Vasuki to permit the petitioner Association to intervene in the application filed by the prosecution to cancel the bail in Crl.M.P. No. 4571 of 1997 in Crl. Appeal No. 677/97
2. The petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 4781/97 in Women Lawyer's Association at Madras represented by its Secretary K. Santhakumari and the above petition is filed under S. 482 of Cr.P.C. to permit the petitioner-Association to intervene in the application filed by the prosecution to cancel the bail in Crl.M.P. No. 4571 of 1997 in Crl. Appeal No. 677/97
3. Both these petitions are opposed by the learned counsel for the accused viz., the respondents 2 to 5 herein
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners in both petitions filed under S. 482 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5/accused, the point that arises for determination is as to whether the petitioners can be permitted to intervene in the application to cancel the bail filed by the prosecution in Crl.M.P. No. 4571 of 1997 during the pendency of the appeal in Crl. Appeal No. 677 of 1997
5. Point :- The State represented by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, CID-I, Chennai was the Investigating Officer, and after investigation the charge sheet was filed, and the charges were framed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in Sessions Case No. 99 of 1993 for the offences under Ss. 343, 348, 324, 330, 376, 218 and 220 read with S. 109 of I.P.C
6. All the accused persons, totally 11 accused persons, were involved in Sessions Case No. 99 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. Out of the total 11 accused, six accused were charged for the offence of rape of one Padmini, while she was in custody in the police station, and they are A1 to A3, A6, A8 and A10, and they were alleged to have committed the offence of rape on the said Padmini, and out of six accused persons charged for the offence of rape under S. 376 of I.P.C., four were convicted and they are A3, A6, A8 and A10, while A1 and A2 were acquitted for the offence of rape on the said Padmini by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in his Judgment dated 4-9-1997. But A1 and A2 were convicted for the offence of wrongful confinement of the said Padmini even though they were acquitted for the offence of rape on the said Padmini. Aggrieved against the Judgment of conviction and sentence A1 and A2 filed a separate appeal in Crl. Appeal No. 680/97, while so the accused A3, A6, A8 and A10 filed a separate appeal in Crl. Appeal No. 677 of 1997. During the pendency of the Crl. Appeal No. 677/97 the accused viz., A3, A6, A8 and A10 filed an application under S. 389(1) of Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence of 10 years passed against them for the offence of rape and to suspend the sentence for the other offences and to release them on bail in Crl.M.P. No. 4472 of 1997, and by an order dated 11-9-1997 the sentences imposed on them were suspended by this Court and they were granted bail. Thereupon the State represented by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, CID-I, Chennai, who is the Investigating Agency, has filed an application in Crl.M.P. No. 4571 of 1997 to cancel the bail granted to A3, A6, A8 and A10 in Crl.M.P. No. 4472 of 1997 consequent to the suspension of sentence. During the pendency of the petition for cancellation of bail in Crl.M.P. No. 4571 of 1997, the petitioners Associations have filed these two petitions under S. 482 of Cr.P.C. to intervene in the petition filed by the prosecution to cancel the bail in Crl.M.P. No. 4571 of 1997. The Petitioners Associations are third parties to the Sessions Case No. 99 of 1993 and also to the consequential Criminal Appeals and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions. In other words the Petitioners Associat
