PRITISH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 21-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRITISH 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 21, 2001 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS, S.N. PHUKAN AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
c 
D 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 
Sections 340, 341, 343, 238 To 243-0ffences q[fecting administration 
of justice-Preliminary inqui1y for initiating prosecution proceedings-
Opportunity of hearing to the accused-Necessity of-Held, there is no statu-
tory requirement to afford an opportumty ()f hearing at the stage ()f deciding 
whether a prosecution proceedings should be initiated or not-It is only when 
the prosecution proceedings commences, accused has a legal right to be 
heard-Merely because appeal is provided under Section 341, court is not 
obliged to afford an opportunity to the accused at the stage of preliminary 
inquiry---Albninistrative la~v-Principles of natural justice. 
Section 340( 1 )-Preliminary inquiry under-Scope of-Held, it is not.for 
finding whether a particular person is guilty or not-The purpose is only to 
E 
decide whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence 
or not. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Jnquiry"-Meaning ()(-In the co/lfext ()f Section 2(g) of the Code of 
F 
Criminal Procedure, 197 3. 
G 
In a land acquisition case, land acquisition office awarded certain 
compensation. On reference by owners of the land, the Reference Court 
on the basis of evidence adduced by parties enhanced the compensation 
amount. Appellant was one of the beneficiaries of the said award. Subse-
quently, it was brought to the notice of the Reference Court that the 
claimants had obtai11ed enhanced compensation by producing forged 
copies of sale deed•. On inquiry, Reference Court found that the appel-
lant and another person had committed offences affecting administration 
of justice by using forged documents. Consequently the Reference Court 
H 
gave a direction for filing criminal complaint against the appellant and 
302 
.. 
PRITISH v. ST A TE 
303 
another person. The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court under 
A 
Section 341 Cr.P.C. contending that there was violation of principles of 
natural justice as inquiry against him was made without giving him an 
opportunity of hearing. Single Judge of the High Court dismissed .the 
appeal holding that there was no requirement for the court before initiat· 
ing an inquiry to give notice to the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the scheme of 
Sections 340 to 344 of the Code contains an in-built safety for the persons 
sought to be proceP.ded against, by obliging the Court to afford an oppor-
tunity of hearing to them, when the Reference Court ordered prosecution 
against the appellant without affording him such opportunity of hearing, it 
has violated the basic principles of natural justice. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. There is no statutory requirement under Section 340 of 
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to afford an opportunity of hearing to 
the person against whom the Court might file a complaint before the 
Magistrate for initiating prosecution proceedings. It is only when the pros-
ecution proceedings commence, the person against whom the accusation is 
made has a legal right to be heard. The principles of natural justice would 
not be hampered by not hearing the person concerned at the stage ·or 
deciding whether such person should be proceeded against or not. Thus, in 
the instant case appellant cannot complain that he was not heard during 
the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Reference Court under Section 
340 of the Code. [309-H; 310-A; F; 312-B] 
1.2. Preliminary inquiry contemplated in Section 340(1) of the Code 
is not for finding whether any particular person is guilty or not. At that. 
stage the court only considers whether it is expedient in the interest of 
justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence affecting 
admini~tration of justice. It is not peremptory that such preliminary inquiry 
should be held. Even without such preliminary inquiry the Court can form 
an opinion when it appears to the Court that an offence has been committed. 
It is important to notice that even when the Court forms such an opinion it 
is not mandatory that the Court should make a complaint. 
[310-G; 308-D-E] 
M.S. Sheriff and Anr. v. State of Madras and Ors., AIR (1954) SC 397, 
followed. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
M. Muthuswamy v. SpeCial Police Establishment, 1985 Crimi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.