Holding

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court to decide the maintainability of the stranger’s revision, the necessity of hearing the appellant, and the requirement of notice to the informant.

Summary

The case arose from an FIR reporting theft of five idols, leading to the investigation and conviction of four accused, including the appellant Ram Naresh Prasad. The prosecution’s application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant was dismissed, but a final report against him was later accepted. Two years later, a stranger (an advocate who was neither the complainant nor the informant) filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge challenging the acceptance of the final report. The Sessions Judge allowed the revision, directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to hear the informant and the appellant, and ordered cognizance of offences under Sections 413 and 414 IPC, which the appellant contested, claiming he was not heard and that the revision was filed after an inordinate delay without condonation. The Supreme Court held that the maintainability of the revision, the requirement of hearing the appellant, and the necessity of giving notice to the informant were open questions, set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the matter for determination of these issues. The appeal was partly allowed and the case was sent back to the High Court.

Issues considered

Whether a person who is not the informant or complainant has locus standi to file a revision petition under CrPC Section 319.
Whether a revision petition filed after a considerable delay (two years) can be entertained without condonation of delay.
Whether the appellant must be given an opportunity of being heard before a revision is entertained.
Whether the informant must be given notice in proceedings arising from a revision petition.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173, s. 190, s. 319
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 380, s. 411, s. 413, s. 414, s. 457

Subjects

revision petitionlocus standidelaycondonationSection 319 CrPCcriminal proceduremagistrate jurisdictioncharge-sheethearinginformant noticecriminal investigationIPC Sections 413 414

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 369

RAM NARESH PRASAD A
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2009
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
)>
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :
s. 319 - Four accused - Application for summoning of c
appellant as accused rejected by trial Court and attained finalty
- Conviction of 4 accused - After investigation, final report
was submitted relating to appellant which was accepted-After
two years, stranger filed revision against the order accepting
final report - Sessions Judge allowed revision and directed D
;-"
·• CJM to hear the case - CJM ordered conviction of appellant
- Revision thereagainst dismissed - Writ petition also
dismissed - On appeal, held: The case raises the questions
whether stranger could file a revision and if same is filed late
by 2 years could it be entertained without condonation of delay E
- Case remitted for deciding these questions - Revision.

An FIR was lodged against unknown persons. The
allegation was theft of five idols. The investigation was
carried out but in the absence of definite clue, final report
was submitted which was accepted by Magistrate. After F
about week, four persons were arrested. Police submitted
supplementary final form against them. Final form was filed
against the appellant. Magistrate convicted all the four
accused persons. During trial, an application under s.319
·- -<
Cr.P.C. was filed by prosecution for summoning the G
appellant as an accused, which was dismissed. The same
was not challenged before any higher Court but the
investigation was kept alive, After investigation on 22.5.1999,
369 H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A final report was submitted so far as appellant was
concerned. The same was accepted.
After 2 years, respondent no.2 who was neither the
complainant nor having any connection with the alleged
offence, filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge
8 against the order dated 22.5.1999. By order dated
18.2.2002, revision p~tition was allowed and CJM was
directed to hear the informant or APP, peruse case diary
both original as well as supplementary and then pass .
order in accordance with law.
c
On 29.8.2002, CJM passed an order taking
cognizance for offences punishaple under ss. 413 and
414 IPC and non-bailable warrant was issued so far as
the appellant was concerned. Aggrieved appellant filed a
revision petition before Sessions Judge which was
0
dismissed. Questioning correctness of the orders, a writ
petition was filed which was dismissed.
j
In, ~ppeal tg thi~ Gour~, ~ppell~nt contended that
~efor~ the orp~r w~s p~s$ed by the Sessions Judge in
E revision, the appellant was not heard; that the revision
petitioner had no· locus standi to file the petition f:lS he
wa~ not the jnfqrmClnt; anq that Sessions Judge did not
~~q!~e abol:'t the que~tion qf maintainability of the revision •
p~titip11 @~ fir§t jn~tan~e:
F Partly allowing the appeal! the Court
li~LD: The matter is remitted to High Court to
consid@r whether the re'(ision petitiPn befgr~ the SesslQns
Judge was maintainable at the instance of Respondent
G No.~ and that too after consider~ble length of time;
whether the appellant needs to be heard; and whether
the informant has to be given the notice. [Para 8] [361-E,
F, G]
Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra AIR (-1-968)
H SC 117 - referred to.
J

RAM NARESH PRASAD V. 371
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

Case Law Reference A
AIR (1968) SC 117 referred to Para 6
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminalAppeai
No.290 of 2009
From the final Judgement and Order dated 17/28.3.2006 B
of the High Court of Jharkliand at Ranchi in WP (Crl) No. 284 of
2002.
Nagendra Rai, Surya Kant and Pranav Vyas, with him for
the Appellant. c
Manish Kumar Saran, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Fuzail
Khan, Akshaliya Kumar, Shefali Jain, Rajesh Prasad Singh and
Ranjana Narayan, for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
D
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court. Appellant filed writ E
petition (Crl.) No. 284 of 2002 with the prayer to quash the order
dated 18.2.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge Palamau
• in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2001. By the said order learned
Sessions Judge set aside order of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate accepting the final report.submitted by the police F
and directed him to pass a fresh order after perusing the case
diary and after hearing the informant. Further prayer was to quash
the o~der passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on
remand taking cognizance of offences punishable under
Sections 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short G
the 'IPC').
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
One Arun Kumar Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the
'informant'- Respondent No.4) in the present appeal filed the H
-..,....-

372 ;....
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') at the Bishrampur ~
Police Station in Palamau District against unknown persons. It
was stated that in the preceding night some unknown persons
had stolen five idols from Thakur Bari. On the basis of the FIR
police instituted case relating to offence punishable under
B Sections 457 and 380 IPC. Investigation was carried out but in
the absence of any definite clue, the final report was submitted
on 4.1.1997, which was accepted by learned Judicial Magistrate.
After about one week one Raghu Thakur was arrested on
12.1.1997 and he made an extra judicial confession before the
c villagers. On the basis of the said extra judicial confession four
persons were detained who were Raghu Thakur, Alak Singh,
Dwarika Saw and Vijay Kumar Soni. On 12.3.1997 police
submitted supplementary Final Form against the aforesaid four
persons indicating commission of offences punishable under
Sections 457, 380, 411 and 414 IPC. Final Form was filed so
D
far as appellant is concerned. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First e-
Class, by his judgment dated 27.1.1999 convicted all the four
accused persons. During trial an application under Section 319
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C,')
was filed by prosecution with a prayer to summon the appellant 1-
E as an accused. The said application was dismissed by the trial
court. The same was not challenged before any higher court but
the investigation was kept alive. Investigation was taken over
by the CID Police from the district police. After investigation on •
22.5.1999 final report was submitted so far as the appellant
F was concerned. The same was accepted. On 18.2.2002 after
about two years, respondent No. 2, a practicing advocate who
was neither the complainant nor having any connection with the
alleged offence, filed a revision petition before the learned
Sessions Judge, Palamau, against the order dated 22.5.1999.
G By order dated 18.2.2002 the revision petition was allowed and
learned CJM was directed to hear the informant or APP, peruse
case diary both original as well as supplementary and then pass
r ...
...

order in accordance with law.

According to the appellant no notice was issued to the
H

'·,
RAM NARESH PRASAD V. 373
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

appellant nor was he heard. Though the revision petition was A
highly belated, the same was admitted ex parte and that too
without condonation of delay. The appellant had no knowledge
about these subsequent events. On 29.8.2002 learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate passed an order taking cognizance for
offences punishable under Sections 413 and 414 IPC and non- B
-i
bailable warrant was issued so far as the appellant is concerned.
Aggrieved by the order dated 29.8.2002 of learned CJM,
\
,._ appellant filed a revision petition before learned Sessions Judge
~
who dismissed the same. Questioning correctness of both the
aforesaid orders, a writ petition was filed which was dismissed c
by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
course adopted by the revisional courts at the first instance is
unknown to law. At no stage before the order was passed by
the learned Sessions Judge in revision, the appellant was heard. D
-T " The revision petitioner had no locus standi to file the petition as
--f • he was not the informant. Learned Sessions Judge did not
decide about the question of maintainability of the revision
petition at first instance. The question of limitation was also not
examined. E
,
5. The respondent No.2 had appeared in person and
according to him the State was taking the sides of the appellant,
' " and he was forced to file the revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the State accepted that if under F
Section 319 Cr.P.C. the petition was rejected, no further steps
were required to be taken by the State to question the
correctness of the order on that behalf.

7. In Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra (AIR 1968

- ....
SC 117) it was observed as under:

"5. On behalf of the appellants, in Criminal Appeal No.
218 of 1966, Mr. Jha, learned counsel, pointed out that
G

when a final report is submitted by the police, under
Section 173(1) of the Code, stating that no case is made
H
RAM NARESH PRASAD V. 375 ..
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

expressed by the dissenting Judges, in A.K. Roy v. State A
of WB. (AIR 1962 Cal 135 (FB) and by the Bombay and
Patna High Courts, in the decisions reported as State v.
Murlidhar Govardhan (AIR 1960 Bom 240), and Ram
Nandan v. State (AIR 1966 Pat. 438), respectively.
7. In order, properly, to appreciate the duties of the police, 8
in the matter of investigation of offences, as well as their
powers, it is necessary to refer to the provisions contained
.. in Chapter XIV of the Code. That chapter deals with
"Information to the Police and their Powers to investigate";
and it contains the group of sections beginning from c
-4 Section 154, and ending with Section 176. Section 154
deals with information reiating to the commission of a
cognizable offence, and the procedure to be adopted in
respect of the same. Section 155, similarly, deals with
information in respect of non-cognizable offences. Sub- D
~
' section (2), of this section, prohibits a police officer from
investigating a non-cognizable case, without the order of
a Magistrate. Section 156 authorises a police officer, in-
charge of a police station, to investigate any cognizable
case, without the order of a Magistrate. Therefore, it will E
be seen that large powers are conferred on the police, in
the matter of investigation into a cognizable offence. Sub-
_. section (3), of Section 156, provides for any Magistrate,
empowered under Section 190, to order an investig_ation.
In cases where a cognizable offence is suspected to have F
been committed, the officer in-charge of a police station,
after sending a report to the Magistrate, is entitled, under
Section 157, to investigate the facts and circumstances
of the case and also to take steps for the discovery and
arrest of the offender. Clause (b), of the proviso to Section
G
• 157(1 ), gives a discretion to the police officer not to
1
investigate the case, if it appears to him that there is no
sufficient ground for entering on an investigation. Section
158 deals with the procedure to be adopted in the matter
of a report to be sent, under Section 157. Section 159
H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. ./

...
A gives power to a Magistrate, on receiving a report under + ~·

Section 157, either to direct an investigation or, himself or
through another Magistrate subordinate to him, to hold a
preliminary enquiry into the matt~r. or otherwise dispose
of the case, in accordance with .the Code. Sections 160
B to 163 deal with the power of.the police to require
attendance of witnesses, examine witnesses and record
statements. Sections 165 and 166 deal with the power of
police officers, in the matter of conducting searches, during ~
an investigation, in the circumstances, mentioned therein.
Section ~ 67 provides for the procedure to be adopted by ~
c the police, when investigation cannot be completed in 24
hours. Section 168 provides for a report being sent to the ~

offic.~r in charge of a police station, about the result of an
investigation, when such investigation has been made by
a subordinate police officer, under Chapter XIV. Section ~·
D · 169 authorises a police officer to release a person from ~

custody, on his executing a bond, to appear, if and when r:
so required, before a Magistrate, in cases when, on
investigation under Chapter XIV, it appears to the officer
in-charge of the police station, or to the police officer
E making the investigation, that there is no sufficient evidence
or reasonable ground of suspicion, to justify the forwarding ,,
of the accused to a Magistrate. Section 170 empowers .
.the officer, in charge of a police station, after investigation
"'·
under Chapter XIV, and if it appears to him that there is
sufficient evidence, to forward the accused, under custody,
F to a competent Magistrate or to take security from the
accused for his appearance before the Magistrate, in
cases where the offence is bailable. Section 172 makes
it obligatory on the police officer making an investigation,
to maintain a diary recording the various particulars therein
G and in the manner indicated in that section. Section 173
provides for an investigation, under Chapter XIV, to be
,_ •
completed, without unnecessary delay and also makes it I
'
obligatory, on the officer in charge of the pqlice ~ta.ti on, to
send a report to the Magistrate concerned, in the manner
H provided for therein, containing the necessary particulars.

>
·'
RAM NARESH PRASAD V. 377
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

8. It is now only necessary to refer to Section 190, occurring A
-~
in Chapter XV, relating to jurisdiction of Criminal Courts in
inquiries and trials. That section is to be found under the
heading "Conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings"
and sub-section (1) is as follows:
"(1) Except as hereinafter provided, any Presidency B
Magistrate, District Magistrate or Sub-divisional
Magistrate, and any other Magistrate specially empowered
in this behalf, may take cognizance of any offence-

t (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute c
such offence;
(b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any
police-officer;
(c) upon information received from any person other than
"'
0
~ a police-officer, or upon his own knowledge or suspicion,
that such offence has been committed."
9. From the foregoing sections, occurring in Chapter XIV,
it will be seen that very elaborate provisions h-ave been
made for securing that an investigation does take place E
into a reported offence and the investigation is carried out
" within the limits of the law, without causing any harassment
' to the accused and is also completed without unnecessary
or undue delay. But the point to be noted is that the manner
and method of conducti.ng the investigation,.are left entirely F
to the police, and the·Magistrate, so far as we can see,
has no power under any of these provisions, to interfere
with the same. If, on investigation, it appears to the officer,
in-charge of a police station, or to the officer making an
investigation, that, there is no sufficient evidence or
... G
-41 reasonable grounds of suspicion justifying the forwarding
of an accused to a Magistrate, Section 169 says that the
officer shall release the accused, if in custody, on his
executing a bond to appear before the Magistrate.
Similarly, if, on the other hand, it appears to the officer, in-
H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

-!
A charge of a police station, or to the officer making the
investigation, under Chapter XIV, that there is sufficient ~

evidence or reasonable ground to justify the forwarding of
an accused to a Magistrate, such an officer is required,
under Section 170, to forward the accused to a Magistrate;
B or, if the offence is bailable, to take security from him for
his appearance before such Magistrate. But, whether a
case comes under Section 169, or under Section 170, of
the Code, on the completion of the investigation, the police "'
officer has to submit a repo.rt to the Magistrate, under
Section J73, in the manner indicated therein, containing ...
c ~~

the various details. The question as to whether the
Magistrate has got power to direct the police to file a
charge-sheet, on receipt of a report under Section 173
really depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction exercised
by a Magistrate, on receiving a report.
D r
'-:'-
10. In this connection, we may refer to certain observations,
made by the Judicial Committee in King Emperor v.
Khwaja Nazir Ahmed (AIR 1945 PC 18) and by this Court,
in H.N. Rishbud and lnder Singh v. State of Delhi (AIR
E 1955 SC 196). In Nazir Ahmed case (supra), Lord Porter
observes, at p. 212, as follows: ~

"Just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime ...
should have free access to a court of justice so that he
may be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with
F which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that
the juqiciary should not interfere with the police in matters
which are within their province and into which the law
imposes on them the duty of inquiry. In India, as has been
shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to
G investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable I>- ,.
crime without requiring any authority from the judicial
authorities, and it would, as Their Lordships think, be an
unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere
with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent
H jurisdiction of the court. The functions of the judiciary and
RAM NARESH PRASAD V. 379
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the A
combination of individual liberty with a due observance of
law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to
exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the
right of the court to intervene in an appropriate case when
moved under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code B
to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such
a case as the present, however, the court's functions begin
when a charge is preferred before it, and not until then."
These observations have been quoted, with approval, by
this Court, in State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak (AIR c
1963 SC 447). This Court in Rishbud and lnder Singh
case (AIR 1955 SC 196) observes, at p. 1156, as follows:
"Investigation usually starts on information relating to the
commission of an offence given to an officer in-charge of
,,, a police station and recorded under Section 154 of the D
""9' Code. If from information so received or otherwise, the
officer in-charge of the police station has reason to suspect
the commission of an offence, he or some other
subordinate officer deputed by him, has to proceed to the
spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case E
and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and
arrest of the offender. Thus investigation primarily consists
in the ascertainment or the facts and circumstances of the
.. case. By definition, it includes all the proceedings under
the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a
F
police officer."
Again, after a reference to some of the provisions in
Chapter XIV of the Code, it is observed at p. 1157:
"Thus, under the Code investigation consists generally of
the following steps: (1) Proceeding to the spot, (2) G
.>< __.,
Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case,
(3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender, (4)
Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the
offence which may consist of (a) the examination of various
persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 2 S.C.R.

A statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search
qf places of seizure of things considered necessary for
-
the ·investigation and to be produced at the trial, and (5)
Formation of the opinion as to whether on the material
collected there is case to place the accused before a
Magistrate for trial and if so taking the necessary steps for
B
the same by filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173 ....
It is also clear that the final step in the investigation viz. the
formation of the opinion as to whether or not there is a
case to place the accused on trial is to be that of the
officer in-charge of the police station."
c
11. We are referring to these observations for the purpose
of emphasizing that the scheme of Chapter XIV, clearly l

1-
shows that the formation of an opinion as to whether or not
there is a case to place the accused on trial, has been left
to the officer in-charge of a police station. Bearing in mind
D r
these principles referred to above, we have to consider ¥"'
the question that arises for consideration, in this case.
The High Courts which have held that the Magistrate has
no jurisdiction to call upon the police to file a charge-
sheet, under such circumstances, have rested their
E decision on two principles viz. (a) that there is no express
provision in the Code empowering a Magistrate to pass
such an order; and (b) such a power, in view of the scheme
,lo-
of Chapter .XIV, cannot be inferred vide Venkata Subba v
Anjanavulu (AIR 1932 Mad 673), Abdul Rahim v. Abdul
F Muktadin (AIR 1953 Assam 112); Amar Premanand v.
State (AIR 1960 Madh. Pra 12); the majority view in A. K.
Roy v. State of W.8.2; and State of Gujarat v. Shah
Lakhamshi1. On the other hand, the High Courts which
have recognised such a power, rest their decision again
on two grounds viz. (a) where a report is submitted by the
G r ,,..
police, after investigation, the Magistrate has to deal with
it judicially, which -will mean that when the report is not
accepted, the Magistrate can give suitable directions to
the police; and (b) the Magistrate is given supervision
over the conduct of investigation by the police, and
H
RAM NARESH PRASAD V. 381
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. {DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

therefore. such a power can be recognised in the A
Magistrate vide State v. Murlidhar Goverdhan; and Ram
Nandan v. State.
12. Though it may be that a report submitted by the police
may have to be dealt with judicially, by a Magistrate, and
although the Magistrate may have certain supervisory B
powers, nevertheless, we are not inclined to .agree with
the further view that from these considerations alone it
can be said that when the police submit a report that no
case has been made out for sending up an accused for
trial, it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to filec
a charge-sheet. But, we may make it clear, that this is not
to say that the Magistrate is absolutely powerless,
because, as will be indicated later, it is open to him to
take cognizance of an offence and proceed, according to

... ~
law. We do not also find any such power, under Section D
173(3), as is sought to be inferred, in some of the decisions
cited above. As we have indicated broadly the approach
made by the various High Courts in coming to different
conclusions, we do not think it necessary to refer to those
decisions in detail." E
8. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order of the High
Court and remit the matter to it to consider the following aspects
..
., (a) Whether the revision petition before the Sessions F
Judge was maintainable at the instance of
Respondent No.2 and that too after considerable
length of time;
(b) Whether the appellant needs to be heard; and
G
.)<
. (c) whether the informant has to be given the notice.
9. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

O.G. Appeal Partly allowed.