Bormoty Panggeng vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh And Anr

Mir Alfaz Ali, J

We have heard Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned P.P. and Addl. A.G. for the State of

Arunachal Pradesh.

The question sought to be answered by this order is whether the informant must be served with a notice before proceeding with the hearing of an

appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction.

The facts giving rise to the above mentioned question are that the appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence

rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. The informant of the case was impleaded as party respondent and notice was issued to him. However,

despite all effort, the notice could not be served on the informant/respondent. Because after lodging the FIR, he had left the place of his residence in

the State of Arunachal Pradesh, for Dadra and Nagar Haveli and did not return, and as such, whereabout of the informant could not be traced out.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit, that there was no statutory requirement for impleadment and issuance of notice to the informant.

However, the informant was impleaded as a party respondent and notice was issued to him in view of the direction of this Court in Crl. Appeal No.

22/2012, and the consequent amendment made in the Gauhati High Court Rules, requiring impleadment of the informant as party respondent. A

learned Single Judge of this Court held in Crl. Appeal No. 22/2012 that “in view of insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, it would be

just and proper to amend the Chapter XI of the Gauhati High Court Rules to make obligatory for the appellant/petitioners to implead the

informants/complainants/victim and accused persons as the case may be, while filing appeals under Sections 374/378 of the CrPC or revision petition

under Section 397/401 or criminal petition under Section 482 of the CrPCâ€. Learned Single Judge also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in

Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 363.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits referring to Section 225 of the CrPC, that prosecution in Sessions Case shall be conducted only by the Public

Prosecutor and involvement of the informant or any other private person in a sessions trial is very minimal. It is also submitted referring to Section 301

of the CrPC that even if a private party instructs a lawyer to prosecute any person in any court, such lawyer engaged or instructed by a private person

may act, only under the direction and supervision of the Public Prosecutor or Asstt. Public Prosecutor in charge of the case and may with the

permission of the court, submit written argument after the evidence is closed. Learned P.P. also referred to the proviso to Section 24(8) of the CrPC,

to submit, that even a victim is required to take permission of the court to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the Public Prosecutor. Therefore,

the participatory rule of the informant or any private person including the victim in a sessions case is circumscribed, and as such, the informant or any

other private person does not have an absolute or independent right to be impleaded as a party or served with a notice in respect of an appeal filed by

the accused against a judgment of conviction rendered by the court of sessions, submits Mr. Choudhury. The learned Public Prosecutor further

contended, that if the informant or any other private person, including the victim, engages a counsel to assist the public prosecutor during the trial, and

submits written argument as per section 301(2) CrPC with the permission of the court, then only, the informant or any other private person

participating in the trial with the permission of the court, may be heard in an appeal against the conviction filed by the accused. It is also submitted that

Rule 1 (A) of the Criminal Rules and Order(Chapter-II) does not provide for issuance of notice to the informant in an appeal against conviction filed

before the High Court u/s 374 (2) of the CrPC. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel (s) for both the sides is that in an appeal against conviction,

the accused is statutorily under no obligation to implead the informant as a party respondent or to serve him/her with notice, and therefore, it should not

be mandatory for the accused to implead the informant or to serve him with notice in an appeal against conviction.

Rather, discretion should be left to the court to hear the informant or the victim or the person affected, if any, by the crime, as an when he/she comes

forward and wants to be heard.

We have considered the submission made by both the learned counsel(s) to assist the court for resolution of the issue before the court.

Before adverting to the submission made by the learned counsel, it would be appropriate to reproduce certain relevant provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for better appreciation of the issue â€

Section 4 :- Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.

(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the

provisions hereinafter contained.

(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to

any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.

Section 24(8) :- The Central Government or the State Government may appoint, for the purposes of any case or class of cases, a person who has

been in practice as an advocate for not less than ten years as a Special Public Prosecutor.

Provided that the court may permit the victim to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the public prosecutor under this Sub-section.

Section 225 :-Trial to be conducted by Public Prosecutor. In every trial before a Court of Session, the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public

Prosecutor.

Section 301 :- Appearance by Public Prosecutors.

(1) The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in

which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal.

(2) If in any such case, any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public

Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public

Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the

case.

Section 302 :- Permission to conduct prosecution.

(1) Any Magistrate inquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than a police officer below the rank

of Inspector; but no person, other than the Advocate General or Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, shall be

entitled to do so without such permission: Provided that no police officer shall be permitted to conduct the prosecution if he has taken part in the

investigation into the offence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted.

(2) Any person conducting the prosecution may do so personally or by a pleader.

Section 372 :- “No appeal to lie, unless otherwise provided:- No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided

for by this Code or any other law for the time being in force.

Provided that the victim shall have right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court acquitting the accused or convicting for lesser

offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of

such court.â€​

Section 2 (WA) CrPC defines the ‘victim’ as under ---

2 (WA)“ “victim†means a person, who has suffered any loss or any injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused

person has been charged and the expression “victimâ€​ includes is or her guardian or legal heir.â€​

Section 225 Cr.P.C. provides that every trial before the court of sessions shall be conducted only by a public prosecutor. At the same time the

provisions of Section 301 (2), 302 (1) and also the proviso to Section 24 (8) of the CrPC makes it appear, that a victim or a private person has a locus

to appear and participate in a proceeding initiated by the State or at the instance of the accused. However, the expression “the pleader so

instructed shall act therein under the direction of the public prosecutorâ€............ “may, with the permission of the court, submit written

argumentâ€, appearing in Section 301 (2) CrPC, the expression “may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person....†in section 302(1)

and the expression “court may permit the victim to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the public prosecutor†in the proviso to Section

24(8) CrPC makes it abundantly clear that the right of the victim or any other private party to participate in the prosecution of a criminal case or a

proceeding where State is the prosecution or a proceeding initiated at the instance of the accused is subject to permission of the court and the

discretion is vested with the court to regulate the participatory role of the private person, and as such, the right of the victim or any other private

person, to be heard in a criminal proceeding initiated by the State or the accused is not absolute or unfettered.

It may also be noticed that there is a distinction between Section 302(1) CrPC, which deals with the enquiry or trial before the Magistrate and

Section 301 (2) of the CrPC, which refers to “any court†including High Court. When in an enquiry or trial before a Magistrate, permission is

granted to any private person to conduct the prosecution, such person may conduct the prosecution personally or by engaging a counsel. In an enquiry

or trial before a Magistrate, once the permission is granted u/s 302 (1) CrPC, the private person, or the lawyer engaged by him can conduct the

prosecution independently. However, unlike the provision of Section 302(1), the lawyers engaged by any private person or the ‘victim’, as

contemplated in Section 301(2) or the proviso to Section 24 (8) CrPC respectively shall act only under the direction and control of the public

prosecutor or Asstt. Public Prosecutor in charge of the case. Thus, the role of such advocate engaged by the ‘victim’ or any other private

person shall be limited only to assist the Public Prosecutor or the Asstt. Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, or to submit written argument after

the evidence is closed, with the permission of the court. Such lawyer engaged by private person cannot conduct prosecution independently. Section

225 CrPC mandates that every trial before the court of sessions shall be conducted only by a public prosecutor. Therefore, necessarily in an appeal

filed by the accused against conviction u/s 374 (2) CrPC before the High Court, the role of an advocate engaged by the victim or any other private

person shall be governed by Section 301(2) CrPC and proviso to section 24(8) of the CrPC, meaning thereby that the role of the advocate appearing

at the instruction of the “victim†or any other private party in the appeal filed by the accused against conviction shall be minimal and subject to

discretion of the court. The proviso to Section 372 CrPC inserted by the Amendment Act of 2009, however, confers an independent and distinct right

upon the victim to prefer an appeal against acquittal or against an order of conviction for lesser offence or inadequate compensation and the term

“victimâ€​ has been defined by clause (wa) of section 2 of the CrPC

In Shiv Kumar- Vs. Hukum Chand and Anr. reported in (1997) 7 SCC 467, the Apex Court had the occasion to interprete the purport of Sections

301 and 302 of the CrPC and the role and limits of participation of a lawyer engaged by a private person in the backdrop of the provisions of section

24 and 225 of the CrPC. The facts before the Supreme Court was that during trial before the court of sessions, informant/victim engaged a private

counsel, who wanted to conduct the prosecution. The accused raised objection on the premise that private counsel cannot conduct prosecution in a

sessions trial. Upon an application moved by the appellant Shiv Kumar, the trial court passed an order, directing that private advocate shall conduct

under the supervision, guidance and control of the public prosecutor, who shall retain with himself the control over the proceedings. Against the order

of the trial court, Shiv Kumar approached the High Court. High Court did not interfere and therefore, Shiv Kumar(informant/victim) approached the

Supreme Court. The Apex Court held in para 12,13, 14 & 19 as under :

“12. In the backdrop of the above provisions we have to understand the purport of Section 301 of the Code. Unlike its succeeding provision in the

Code, the application of which is confined to magistrate courts, this particular section is applicable to all the courts of criminal jurisdiction. This

distinction can be discerned from employment of the words any court in Section 301. In view of the provision made in the succeeding section as for

magistrate courts the insistence contained in Section 301(2) must be understood as applicable to all other courts without any exception. The first sub-

section empowers the Public Prosecutor to plead in the court without any written authority, provided he is in charge of the case. The second sub-

section, which is sought to be invoked by the appellant, imposes the curb on a counsel engaged by any private party. It limits his role to act in the court

during such prosecution under the directions of the Public Prosecutor. The only other liberty which he can possibly exercise is to submit written

arguments after the closure of evidence in the trial, but that too can be done only if the court permits him to do so.

From the scheme of the Code the legislative intention is manifestly clear that prosecution in a sessions court cannot be conducted by any one other

than the Public Prosecutor. The legislature reminds the State that the policy must strictly conform to fairness in the trial of an accused in a sessions

court. A Public Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of the accused somehow or the other irrespective of the

true facts involved in the case. The expected attitude of the Public Prosecutor while conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not only to

the court and to the investigating agencies but to the accused as well. If an accused is entitled to any legitimate benefit during trial the Public

Prosecutor should not scuttle/conceal it. On the contrary, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to winch it to the fore and make it available to the

accused. Even if the defence counsel overlooked it, Public Prosecutor has the added responsibility to bring it to the notice of the court if it comes to his

knowledge. A private counsel, if allowed free hand to conduct prosecution would focus on bringing the case to conviction even if it is not a fit case to

be so convicted. That is the reason why Parliament applied a bridle on him and subjected his role strictly to the instructions given by the Public

Prosecutor.

It is not merely an overall supervision which the Public Prosecutor is expected to perform in such cases when a privately engaged counsel is

permitted to act on his behalf. The role which a private counsel in such a situation can play is, perhaps, comparable with that of a junior advocate

conducting the case of his senior in a court. The private counsel is to act on behalf of the Public Prosecutor albeit the fact he is engaged in the case by

a private party. If the role of the Public Prosecutor is allowed to shrink to a mere supervisory role the trial would become a combat between the

private party and the accused which would render the legislative mandate in Section 225 of the Code a dead letter.

We therefore, conclude, that the High Court in the impugned order correctly approached the issue and it does not warrant any

interference……..â€​

In J.K. International Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 462, the Apex Court observed that, when a case is charge-sheeted

by police, the accused has no obligation to made the informant a party in a petition for quashing the criminal proceeding, inasmuch as, it is the

predominantly concern of the State to continue the proceeding. But when a criminal proceeding is sought to be quashed, it would be negation of justice

to him, if he is foreclosed from being heard even after he makes a request to the court in that behalf . The factual matrix of the case was that the

police took cognizance of offence u/s 420/406/120-B IPC against the appellant and issued process on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by

police. The accused/appellant approached the High Court for quashing the proceeding, wherein the informant was not made a party. Therefore, the

informant filed an application for impleadment which was rejected by the High Court. Having elaborately discussed the purport of Section 301(2) and

302 (1) as well as Section 225 of the CrPC the Apex Court observed that, when a limited role of a private person is permitted even in sessions case,

the private person, who is “aggrieved†is not wiped off from the proceeding in the criminal court, merely because, the case was charge-sheeted

by police.

It may be pointed out that the offence involved in the case dealt by the Apex Court in J.K. International’s case was triable by Magistrate and

as per Section 302(1) CrPC, the Magistrate could permit any person, other than a police officer below the rank of Inspector to conduct a prosecution

before it. But in a sessions case, prosecution has to be conducted only by the Public Prosecutor, and the role of private person or the advocate

engaged by private person is limited to the extent of assisting the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, as the case may be. However, in

an enquiry or trial before Magistrate, if any private person is permitted to conduct the prosecution, the role of such person or the counsel engaged by

him is not limited unlike under the provision of section 301(2) CrPC.

In the case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (supra), the Apex Court, referring to Section 401 (2)

CrPC observed that in a revision, any person including accused, who is prejudiced by the order is required to be heard. The facts of the case was that

the complainant filed an application u/s 156 (3) CrPC along with the complaint praying for sending the complaint to the police for investigation.

However, the learned Magistrate refused to exercise its jurisdiction u/s 156 (3) of the CrPC. The complainant filed a revision against the order of the

Magistrate without impleading the accused. The High Court allowed the petition and remanded the case to Magistrate. The accused approached the

Supreme Court against the said order. An argument was advanced before the Supreme Court that in pre-cognizance stage the accused has no

‘locus’ to be heard. However, the Apex Court took the view that, when the Magistrate after taking cognizance directed the complainant to

adduce his witness for conducting an enquiry u/s 202 CrPC, it was post cognizance stage, and in that context the Apex Court observed that when the

accused was prejudiced by the order, he was required to be heard.

In Bhagawant Vs. Commissioner of Police and Anr., reported in (1985) 2 SCC 537, the Apex Court held that a person lodging the FIR is entitled

to notice and opportunity of ‘being heard’, when on the basis of police report Magistrate prefers to drop the proceeding instead of taking

cognizance, inasmuch as, the informant shall be prejudiced because the First Information Report lodged by the informant would have failed its

purpose. The Apex Court further considered the locus of the injured or any relative of the deceased to appear and to be heard, while the Magistrate

considers the final report submitted by police u/s 173 (2) (1) CrPC and observed that though, the injured or the relative of the deceased may not be

entitled to notice, the Magistrate is obliged to hear such injured or relative of the victim, if he wants to be heard.

It may not be out of place to recollect herein the fundamental nature of a criminal proceeding, which deals with the crime. Crime is deemed by law

to be detrimental to the society in general, though, immediate sufferer of a crime may be an individual. Therefore, criminal jurisprudence provides for

punishment to the offender and the State is empowered by law to punish the offenders. Because of the above fundamental nature of a criminal

proceeding, the criminal law envisages the State as prosecutor in a criminal trial. Be that as it may, though, crime is deemed by law to be detrimental

to the society in general and State is considered as the prosecutor in a criminal trial, increasing recognition of the concept of victimology or the right

and participatory role of the victim, who is the ultimate sufferer or directly affected by a crime can be seen both in the legislative changes brought

about in the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as judicial pronouncement, as indicated above.

Nonetheless, what is important to note and is discernible from the aforesaid provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judicial

pronouncement is that the role of a private person, whether a victim/informant or the counsel engaged by private person/victim in a criminal

proceeding initiated at the instance of the accused or the State is made subject to control and regulation by court, under the scheme of the CrPC.

Therefore, locus of the victim or any other private person including informant, to appear or to be heard in a criminal proceeding initiated at the instance

of the accused or the State is not absolute, rather, subject to judicial discretion of the court. The discretion of the court in respect of right of the victim,

or the circumscription of the victim’s right to be heard in a criminal proceeding, where State is the prosecutor is made further transparent by the

proviso to Section 24(8) of the CrPC incorporated by Criminal Law Amendment Act in 2009, which provides that “court may permit the victim to

engage an advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution.†Whereas, right of appeal by the victim against acquittal or against the order of conviction

for lesser offence as envisaged by the proviso to section 372 CrPC inserted by 2009 Amendment Act is an independent and distinct right. Thus, there

is a clear distinction between the right of the victim to participate or to be heard in a proceeding initiated at the instance of the accused or the State,

which is subject to judicial discretion of the court and the independent right of appeal against acquittal etc conferred on the victim by the proviso to

Section 372 CrPC and therefore, both cannot be equated. It is also worth noting that proviso to Section 24(8) and proviso to Section 372 CrPC were

brought in by the same Amendment Act of 2009. Thus, the distinction between the aforesaid two provisions incorporated by the same Amendment

Act of 2009, and the fetter imposed on the right of the victim to be heard in a criminal proceeding initiated at the instance of the accused or the State

makes the purpose and intendment of the legislature amply clear, that a person, who is affected by the crime or a victim of the crime cannot, as a

matter of right, claim to be heard in a proceeding initiated at the instance of the accused or the State or to be impleaded as respondent in an appeal

preferred by the accused against the conviction. However, if a victim comes forward and wants to be heard or in the facts and circumstances of the

case, the court considers the necessity of hearing the informant or the victim in a proceeding initiated at the instance of the accused, the court may

always exercise its judicial discretion to issue notice and hear the victim or the informant, as the case may be. Therefore, though a private person or a

victim, who has a locus to be heard or to take part in a criminal proceeding instituted by the State or initiated at the instance of the accused, the

informant/victim cannot be considered or held to be entitled to be served with notice or claimed to be heard as a matter of right. Thus, in view of the

purpose and intendment of the legislature revealed from the wordings of the provisions of Section 301 (2) CrPC, 302 as well as the proviso to Section

24(8) of the CrPC, we are of the considered opinion, that any interpretation, holding, that the informant shall be mandatorily made party respondent or

served him with notice in a proceeding initiated at the instance of the accused or for that matter, making it obligatory to serve the informant/victim with

notice before proceeding to hear an appeal instituted by the accused against conviction, because of insertion of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC may,

neither be appropriate nor desirable, as it shall not be conducive to the legislative purpose and intendment.

Section 4 (1) of the CrPC provides that all offences under the Penal Code shall be investigated, enquired into and tried or otherwise dealt with the

procedures prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 372 CrPC provides that “No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a

criminal court except as provided for by this Code(Code of Criminal Procedure) or by any other law for the time being in force.“ Thus, the appeal

is the creature of the statute and it has to be dealt in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law

for the time being in force. Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the procedure for hearing appeal, which has not been dismissed

summarily. Section 385 CrPC reads as under :-

“385. Procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily.

(1) If the Appellate Court does not dismiss the appeal summarily, it shall cause notice of the time and place at which such appeal will be heard to be

given-

(i) to the appellant or his pleader;

(ii) to such officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf;

(iii) if the appeal is from a judgment of conviction in a case instituted upon complaint, to the complainant;

(iv) if the appeal is under section 377 or section 378, to the accused, and shall also furnish such officer, complainant and accused with a copy of the

grounds of appeal.

(2) The Appellate Court shall then send for the record of the case, if such record is not already available in that Court, and hear the parties: Provided

that if the appeal is only as to the extent or the legality of the sentence, the Court may dispose of the appeal without sending for the record.

(3) Where the only ground for appeal from a conviction is the alleged severity of the sentence, the appellant shall not, except with the leave of the

Court, urge or be heard in support of any other ground.â€​

A plain reading of the above provision would show that before proceeding to hear an appeal, as per mandate of Section 385 (1) of the CrPC,

notice of hearing is required to be given to (i) the counsel for the appellant, (ii) the officer, as the State Govt. may appoint in this behalf in cases

instituted on the basis of police report (iii) the complainant, when the appeal is from a judgment of conviction in a case instituted upon complaint, (iv)

the accused, when appeal is filed against the order of acquittal or on the ground of inadequacy of sentence. What is demonstrable from the above

provision is that, the section 385 (1) has made it obligatory on the part of the court to issue notice to the complainant in an appeal against conviction

when the case is instituted upon complaint. However, Section 385 CrPC does not provide the requirement of issuing notice of hearing of the appeal to

the informant, when the case is instituted on the basis of police report, rather, as per mandate of clause (ii) of Section 385(1) CrPC, notice is required

to be given to the officer as the govt. may appoint. From the clause (ii) & (iii) of Section 385 (1) CrPC, it is abundantly clear that legislature has

consciously left out the informant from the entitlement of the notice in case of appeal against conviction, when case is instituted on police report.

Therefore, statutorily the informant is not required to be served with a notice before proceeding to hear an appeal against conviction when the case is

instituted upon police report.

It must be borne in mind that recognition of the victim’s right to participate in a criminal proceeding, initiated at the instance of the accused or

the State within the limit prescribed under the scheme of the CrPC is prompted by the object purpose and intendment of the legislature, that the

aggrieved injured or relative of the deceased (victim), who are the ultimate sufferer and directly affected by the crime cannot be kept outside the

corridors of the court or the right of the victims to participate in the criminal proceeding, where they are the “aggrieved persons†cannot be totally

wiped out. Looking from this angle it must be understood that the victim is a person who is directly affected by the crime and is considered to be the

“person aggrievedâ€. But the victim may or may not be the informant. Therefore, the term “victim†and “informant†is not

interchangeable. A victim may be an informant. But an informant need not necessarily be a victim, reason being that criminal law can be set into

motion by any one, irrespective of whether he is personally ‘aggrieved’ or affected by the crime or not, because the question of “locus†or

‘person aggrieved’ does not come in, while lodging an FIR for a cognizable offence. Therefore, an informant, who is not a victim or affected by

the crime may not have any interest in a proceeding initiated at the instance of the accused, or for that matter in any appeal against conviction, filed by

the accused, and as such, there may not be any necessity to issue notice to the informant or impleading the informant as party. Thus, looking from this

angle also, making it obligatory or mandatory for the accused or the court to serve the informant with a notice, before hearing an appeal against

conviction filed by the accused, is neither desirable nor conducive with the legislative intendment.

The Full Bench of the Jharkhand High Court was considering a similar question that “whether the informant and the victim, who is the ultimate

sufferer of a criminal case have a legal right to appear, in a proceeding initiated at the instance of the accused, through a private lawyer as per

provision contained under Section 301 (2) of the CrPC as well as the law laid down in the case of J.K. International (supra). The Hon’ble

Jharkhand High Court having extensively discussed the relevant provision of the CrPC, as well as in the judgments of the Apex Court, held in para 28

as under :

“28. Upon survey of the law evolved through the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the legislative Changes which has progressively

occurred towards the recognition of the role and rights of the victim in a criminal trial, and the discussions made herein above, it can be said that the

victim or a private person has the locus to appear in a proceeding initiated at the instance of the accused in any case before any Court where it is a

affected party, however subject to the discretion conferred upon the Court, to be exercised in the manner and to the extent, as may be required in the

facts and circumstances of a particular case. ""Locus Standi"" has been defined in the Blacks Law Dictionary as ""the right to bring an action or to be

heard in a given forum."" As per the Law Lexicon by P Ramanatha Aiyar ""Locus Standi"" signifies a right of appearance in a Court of Justice or right

to be heard or place of standing. Such a Locus Standi confers on a person only if he has a interest in the matter. The victim / private person in that

sense does have a interest in the matter since it is the ultimate sufferer of such crime. However, u/s 301(2) of the code, the legislature has consciously

regulated it in the manner that the Pleader so instructed by a private person, shall act in any such case under the directions of the Public Prosecutor

only and not as an absolute legal right of independent appearance before the Court. The aforesaid provision is therefore in clear distinction from the

specific provision u/s 372 proviso of the code conferring upon the victim a distinct legal right to prefer an appeal which was not earlier available to him

under the unamended section 372. The conscious distinction made by the legislature in the wording of the two provisions is apparent and with a

definite legislative purpose and intent. If such a view is taken that the victim / private party or the informant has legal right to appear in a proceeding

initiated at the instance of the accused under the provisions of Section 301(2) of the Cr.PC read with Section 24(8) proviso, it would mean that the

victim / private party is a necessary party in every such proceeding and as a matter of right, is entitled to notice before the proceedings are heard and

decided. Such a course of Interpretation would amount to creating a specific legal right which the legislature never intended to confer upon the victim /

private person. Such interpretation is neither desirable nor appropriate for a Court of law while undertaking the task of interpreting the specific

language used in the Statute keeping into mind the Statute as a whole and the aim and object which it seeks to achieve.â€​

In view of the discussion and the reasons stated above, we answer the question in the negative. We further hold, that it is not obligatory on the part

of the accused or the court to implead the informant as a party or to serve the informant with notice, before proceeding to hear an appeal filed by the

accused against conviction in a case arising out of a police report. However, the “victim†may participate, with permission of the court, in the

appeal filed by the accused against conviction and may engage a counsel of his/her choice, to assist the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, and

may also submit written argument with the permission of the court. Therefore, in our opinion, the direction given in criminal appeal No. 222/2012 by

the learned Single Judge, making impleadment of the informant obligatory on the part of the appellant in an appeal preferred by the accused against

conviction does not reflect good law. The question is accordingly answered.

The notice on the informant is dispensed with. Let the appeal be listed for hearing.