In a criminal proceeding, the state stands forward as prosecutor on public grounds. A criminal prosecution is not intended for the private satisfaction of a personal vendetta or revenge.
By Chongtham Victor
Justice is functionally denied not only when an innocent person is punished but also when a guilty criminal gets away with it stultifying the legal system. An insightful understanding of the sweep, scope and character envisaged in the relevant articles of the Indian constitution is highly called for so as to easily dispel the dichotomy between an antecedent right of appeal even at the hands of third party a non-State character. For instance, the present acquittal of an allegedly the main conspirator namely Lhukhosei Zou, a former ADC chairperson within the State of Manipur and scapegoating of the other two alleged accomplices/conspirators in a drug haul case which is popularly known as Lhukhosei Zou case. Mention may be made that out of the 13 (thirteen) accused persons only 2 (two) have been convicted by the NDPS, Special Court at Lamphelpat, Imphal.
The Jural reach and plural range of the Judicial process to remove injustice in a given society is a sure index of the versatile genius of law-in-action as a delivery system of social justice. Our constitutional order vests in the apex court a jurisdiction to do justice, at once omnipresent and omnipotent but controlled and guided by that refined yet flexible censor called judicial discretion. This nidus of power and process, which master-minds the broad observance throughout the Republic of justice according to law, is Art. 136 of Indian Constitution.
Article 136 as stated above ——“ Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.”
In order to make it more relevant this provisions of law with the discontent, hue and cry of the public against the said judgement passed under Special Trial No. 100 of 2018 special court NDPS Manipur, it is apparent from the records no one can prefer appeal or resort to any other provisions other than the STATE of Manipur. Common citizens are left gasping for want of justice. And to make it evenly substantiated we need to discuss what Locus Standi is: “Locus Standi” which is a Latin term, the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court. The traditional view of “Locus standi” has been that the person who is aggrieved or affected has the standing before the court, i.e., to say he only has a right to move the court for seeking justice. Later on within the present context, by the Apex Court, with justice-oriented approach, relaxed the strict rule with regard to locus standi, allowing any person from the society not related to the cause of action to approach the court seeking justice for those who could not approach themselves. Now turning our attention towards the criminal trial, which is conducted, largely, by following the procedure laid down in the CrPC. If the offence is committed against the society, the prosecution against the accused person is launched by the State. It is the duty of the State to get the culprit booked for the offence committed by him. The focal point, here, is that if the State fails in this regard and the party having bonafide connection with the cause of action, who is aggrieved by the order of the court cannot be left at the mercy of the State and without any option to approach the appellate court for seeking justice. In this regard, the Constitution Bench of supreme Court of India has also elaborately come to deal with the aforesaid ‘fact’ situation.
It is true that the strictest vigilance over abuse of the process of the court, especially at the expensively exalted level of the Supreme Court, should be maintained and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted visa. It is also true that in the criminal jurisdiction this strictness applies a fortiori since an adverse verdict from the Supreme Court may result in irretrievable injury to life or liberty. Having said this, I must emphasise that we are living in times when many societal pollutants create new problems of un-redressed grievance when the State becomes the sole repository for initiation of criminal action. Sometimes, pachydermic indifference of bureaucratic officials, at other times politicisation of higher functionaries may result in refusal to take a case to the Court under Article 136. While the criminal law should not be used as a weapon in personal vendettas between private individuals, as Lord Shawcross once wrote, in the absence of an independent prosecution authority easily accessible to every citizen, a wider connotation of the expression standing is necessary for Article 136 to further its mission. There are jurisdictions in which private individuals not the State alone may institute criminal proceedings.
However, independent they may legally be any public official, police or prosecuting authority, must be subject to some government supervision and be dependent on Government funds; its officers will inevitably have personal links with government. They will be part of the establishment. There may be cases where a decision not to prosecute a case having political ramifications will be seen, rightly or wrongly, as politically motivated. Even in the English System, as pointed permits a private citizen to file an indictment. In our view the narrow limits set in vintage English Law, into the concept of person aggrieved and standing needs liberalisation in our democratic situation. In Dabholkar case the Supreme Court of India imparted such a wider meaning. The American Supreme Court relaxed the restrictive attitude towards standing in the famous case of Baker versus Carr. Lord Denning, in the notable case of the Attorney-General of the Gambia versus Pierra Sarr Njie, spoke thus:
… the words person aggrieved are of wide import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. They do not include, of course, a mere busybody who is interfering in things which do not concern him.
All developed legal systems have had to face the problem of adjusting conflicts between two aspects of the public interest the desirability of encouraging individual citizens to participate actively in the enforcement of the law, and the undesirability of encouraging the professional litigant and the meddlesome interloper to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts in matters that do not concern him. We need to look beyond the personal rights of the applicant. We need to keep the machinery of justice in proper working order by preventing inferior tribunals, courts and public authorities from abusing their powers.
In Dabholkar case as mentioned above, it is written as: The possible apprehension that widening legal standing with a public connotation may unloose a flood of litigation which may overwhelm the Judges is misplaced because public resort to court to suppress public mischief is a tribute to the justice system.
In India also, the criminal law envisages the State as a prosecutor. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the machinery of the State is set in motion on information received by the police or on a complaint filed by a private person before a Magistrate. If the case proceeds to trial and the accused is acquitted, the right to appeal against the acquittal is closely circumscribed. Thus the complainant continues to be subject to the prerequisite condition that he must obtain special leave to appeal from High Court. The fetters so imposed on the right to appeal are prompted by the reluctance to expose a person, who has been acquitted by a competent court of a criminal charge, to the anxiety and tension of a further examination of the case, even though it is held by a superior court. The Law Commission of India gave anxious thought to this matter, and while noting that the Code(crpc) recognised a few exceptions by way of permitting a person aggrieved to initiate proceedings in certain cases and permitting the complainant to appeal against an acquittal with special leave of the High Court, expressed itself against the general desirability to encourage appeals against acquittal.
Extreme cases of manifest injustice, where the Government fails to act, and the party aggrieved has a strong feeling that the matter requires further consideration, should not, in my view, be left to the mercy of the Government. To inspire and maintain confidence in the administration of justice, the limited right of appeal with leave given to a private party should be retained, and should embrace cases initiated on private complaint or otherwise at the instance of an aggrieved person. Article 136 is a plenary power, exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law to meet the pressing demands of justice. Appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution are entertained by special leave granted by the Supreme Court, whether it is the State or a private party that invokes the jurisdiction of this Court.
The circumstance that the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not provide for an appeal to the High Court against an order of acquittal by a subordinate court, at the instance of a private party, has no relevance to the question of the power of the Supreme Court under Article 136.
It is clear from the aforementioned case law that the Court should be liberal in allowing any third party, having bonafide connection with the matter, to maintain the appeal with a view to advance substantial justice. Persons, unconnected with the matter under consideration or having personal grievance against the accused should be checked. The Court should entertain a special leave petition filed by a private party, other than the complainant, in those cases only where it is convinced that the public interest justifies an appeal against the acquittal and that the State has refrained from petitioning for special leave for reasons which do not bear on the public interest but are prompted by private influence, want of bona fide and other extraneous considerations.
A crime is an act deemed by law to be harmful to society in general, even though its immediate victim is an individual. Unlike the other heinous crimes which may injure primarily the particular victim the consequences of psychotropic substances stands very different and resulted to a blatant disregard of human life puts it beyond a matter of mere compensation or repair. Those who commit such acts are proceeded against by the State in order that, if convicted, they may be punished. No private person has a direct interest in a criminal proceeding although exception may be made by the Statute in certain cases.
The notion of crime as a threat to the whole community is the material counter-part of the formal rule that the State alone is master of a criminal prosecution. In a criminal proceeding, the state stands forward as prosecutor on public grounds. A criminal prosecution is not intended for the private satisfaction of a personal vendetta or revenge. In India, the criminal law envisages the State as the prosecutor. The Court in Extra –Ordinary circumstances entertains a special leave petition filed by a private party, other than the complainant, in those cases only where it is convinced that the public interest justifies an appeal against the acquittal and that the State has refrained from petitioning for special leave for reasons which do not bear on the public interest but are prompted by private influence, want of bona fide and other extraneous considerations.
“Extreme cases of manifest injustice, where the Government fails to act, and the party aggrieved has a strong feeling that the matter requires further consideration, should not be left to the mercy of the Government. To inspire and maintain confidence in the administration of justice, that limited right of appeal with leave given to a private party should be retained, and should embrace cases initiated on private complaint or otherwise at the instance of an aggrieved person.”
(Chongtham Victor is an advocate based in Imphal.)