A.K. SUBBAIAH & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 1128 · Decided: 28-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
A.K. SUBBAIAH & QRS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
AUGUST 28, 1987 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: ss. 397 & 401-High Court-
Revisional jurisdiction-Scope of-Challenge to issue of process-High 
Court to see whether prima facie case made out-Persons not parties 
before trial court-Whether could be impleaded in revision. 
The trial court took cognizance of a complaint by the State 
Government under s. 500 l.P.C. filed on the basis of a sanction granted 
by the State Government under s. 199(2) Cr. P.C., as one of the persollS 
defamed was the Director General of Police, and issued process ag~inst 
D the appellants. In the revision petition preferred by the appellants 
under ss. 397 and 401 Cr. P.C. against that order, in addition to 
respondent I, the appellants also joined respondent 2, the Director 
General of Police, and respondent 3, the Chief Minister of the State, llS 
parties. The High Court admitted the petition and ordered issue of 
notice to the respondents, but directed deletion of the names of respon-
E dents 2 and 3 holding that they were not necessary parties to the ~ 
proceedings. 
F 
In the appeal by special leave assailing the order of the High 
Court it was contended for the appellants that since the prosecution was 
instituted by sanction from the State Government, and the news item 
and the allegation which formed the basis of the complaint pertained to 
the two respondents they were necessary parties before the High Court. 
The High Court, therefore in exercise of its jurisdiction under s. 401(2) 
Cr.P.C. was not right in deleting the names of these two respondents. 
For the resp0ndents, it was contended that the High Court was right in 
deleting the names of respondents 2 and 3 as they were not parties in the 
G criminal cas~ pending before the trial court, nor were they necessary ~ 
parties to the proceedings before the High Court, that under ss. 397 and 
401 Cr.P.C. what the High Court was expected to see in revision against 
the issue of process was as to whether the complaint and the papers filed 
alongwith it were sufficient to justify the order passed by the trial court 
and whether it was a proceeding which deserves to continue or it could 
H be quashed. 
1128 
--
-
• 
--
A.K. SUBBAIAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
1129 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, 
HELD: 1. The High Court was right in deleting the names of the 
two respondents. [1137F-G] 
A 
t 
2. When the issue of process is challenged in revision petition 
13 
before the High Court and the recrod is called for under s. 397 Cr.P.C., 
).. 
what it is expected to see only is as to whether the complaint and the 
papers accompanying it prima facie indicate that an offence is made 
out. If the complaint and the papers in the opinion of the High Court 
are such which do not prima facie disclose an offence then it will be 
open to the High Court to entertain the revision and quash the proceed-
ings. Except this the High Court is not expected to go into the matter at c 
"( 
all. [1137C-DJ 
3. Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where a 
person may not be an accused person before the court below but one 
who might have been discharged and therefore if the revisional court 
-1: 
after exercising jurisdiction under s. 401 wants to pass an order to the 
D 
prejudice of such a person, it is necessary that that person should be 
given an opportunity of hearing but it does not contemplate any con-
tingency of hearing of any person who is neither party in the proceed-
ings in the court below nor is expected at any stage even after the 
revision to be joined as party. [1136B-DJ 
.Jfl. 
, 
E 
In the instant case the prosecution was launched by the State 
'( 
Government and before the trial court the only parties were the peti-
tioners, who were accused persons, and the State Government, which 
stood in the place of a complainant. There were prosecution witnesses 
and there might even be defence witnesses. But the witnesses are not 
parties to the proceedings. The two respondents were not parties before 
F 
the court below. They could not, therefore, be joined as parties before 
the High Court. [1135B-C] 
4. The question about anyone else being instrumental in getting 
the prosecution launched or questions which are foreign are not to be 
Y considered in a revision where the issue of process is being challenged 
G 
and therefore the further question in the instant case as to whether the 
pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.