( 1 ) THE following question has been referred by a learned Single Judge for the decision of this bench :- "whether a person who lodges a first information report is a party interested within the meaning of Section 526 Cr. P. C. in a case prosecuted by the State".

( 2 ) SECTION 526 Cr. P. C.--hereinafter called the Code--confers power upon and lays down the condition under which, a High Court can transfer a case pending in a criminal court subordinate to its authority from that court to another criminal court of equal or superior jurisdiction, or itself try it. The manner in which, and the persons by whom, the power can be invoked are given in sub-section (3) of that section. Under that sub-section. "the High Court may act either on the report of the lower court or on the application of a party interested or on its own initiative. "

( 3 ) THE question posed above thus concerns the construction which is to be placed on the expression "party interested". Is it confined in its scope--as contended for by Mr. D. S. Tewari, learned counsel for the opposite party--to the accused and the public prosecutor, on behalf of the state in a case started by the police and a complainant in a case instituted on a private complaint or is it--as argued, by Mr. S. N. Misra, learned counsel for the applicant--wide enough also to include an aggrieved person who lays information about a crime with the police and thereby sets the machinery of law in motion. In my opinion the alternative answer is to be preferred. I shall therefore proceed forthwith to give my reasons for coming to that conclusion.

( 4 ) NOW, the word party has not been defined in the Code. In coasonance therefore with the well-established canon of interpretation applicable to such a case, that word would have to be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, so that in relation to proceedings in Court it would mean "each of the two or more persona making the two sides in legal action," (Oxford Concise English dictionary ). It follows therefore that if that word in Sub-section (3) had stood unqualified in any way, there would have been little to be said in favour of Mr. Misras point of view. As it is, however that word is followed by the term interested. Since the Legislature is intended to use every word in an Act with a purpose, it becomes necessary to find out what it meant by the word interested in the aforesaid context.

( 5 ) IN my opinion the addition of that term was made in order to give the word party a wider amplitude than it otherwise possessed. I say so, because on no other basis can the use of that term if it is to have a purpose and meaning be explained. If used to qualify party in the narrow sense, it is a surplusage as it is impossible to conceive of a party in that sense not being interested in its own cause. If however it is used to differentiate an accused who has a reasonable apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial trial from a co-accused who has no such personal apprehension, it is equally redundant, because the right of the latter to move a transfer application cannot be taken away--though his application may be dismissed on merits--on that ground. For all these reasons the term interested must be given the interpretation preferred by me above.

( 6 ) THE interpretation which I have ventured to place above on the expression party interested finds considerable support from the change which the Legislature itself thought fit to make in another sub-section, viz. Sub-section (8), of Section 526 of the Code, by the Amending Act No. XXI of 1932. Till that amendment the said sub-section ran thus:

"if, in the course of any inquiry or trial, or before the commencement of the hearing of any appeal, the public Prosecutor, the complainant or the accused notifies to the Court before which the case or appeal is pending his intention to make an application under this section in respect of such, case or appeal, the Court shall adjourn the case or postpone the appeal fo