The High Court dismissed an appeal against acquittal as the appellants were merely witnesses in the trial and not parties, thus lacking locus standi to maintain the appeal under Section 378 CrPC.
None. The appeal of C.R.A 550 of 2011 was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability due to lack of locus standi.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (APPELLATE SIDE)
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
C.R.A No. 550 of 2011
Prativa Sinha & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Amicus curiae : Ms. Sibangi Chattopadhyay. For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P. : Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala, : Mr. Pratick Bose.
Hearing concluded on : 16/03/2023
Judgment on: 23/08/2023
Rai Chattopadhyay, J.
1. Allegations against the respondent no. 2/accused person, for defalcation of money of the Co-operative Credit Society, entrusted with him, as an office bearer of the said Society, are at the core of the issues, for which the respondent no.2 has faced trial.
2. The judgment and order of acquittal of the trial Court dated May 31, 2011, in Special Court Case No. 15/2001 is under challenge in this appeal. On the basis of the FIR lodged by one Ajit Chowdhuri, Chairman, Employees’ Co-operative Credit Society of R.T. Girls’ School at
Page 2 of 5
Suri, the Suri Police Station Case No. 14/99 dated 20.01.1999 was started. The FIR was lodged on 20.01.1999, under Sections 406/409/403/467/468/471 of the IPC.
3. The allegation against the respondent no.2/accused person in a nutshell was that while holding office as the Secretary of the said Cooperative Credit Society, and while being assigned with the duty to manage the loan accounts of the members thereof, the said person has defalcated and used for his own wrongful gain a sum of money amounting to Rs.2,82,024/-. Allegedly, he defalcated the money by not repaying the instalments of loan taken by the members of the Society to the Bank, which the members deposited with him as the office bearer of the said Society, for the purpose of repaying the same in bank against respective individual loanee.
4. The trial Court on July 31, 2002 framed charges against the respondent no.2 under Sections 409 and 471 of the IPC. In trial the prosecution has examined as many as fifteen witnesses including the members of the said Co-operative Society, who happened to be the teachers of the said School, the staff of the bank where the Co-operative Society used to maintain the account and the Police Personnel. One person has also been examined as the defence witness.
5. The trial Court proceeded on the premise that the prosecution though has alleged but could not bring on record sufficient evidence including documentary evidence, to substantiate those allegations against the accused persons. The trial Court has discussed the evidence on record in details. It has opined that the necessary documentary proof regarding entrustment of the money with the accused person and his misappropriation of the same by utilising the same for wrongful gain, could not have been brought on record by the prosecution. For this, the
Page 3 of 5
trial Court has finally opined that the allegations under Section 409 and 471 of the IPC against the respondent no, 2/accused person were not proved in trial and ultimately acquitted him by dint of the impugned judgment as above.
6. The propriety of the said impugned judgment has been challenged in this appeal. However, in spite of grant of sufficient opportunity, none appeared to represent the appellant. Under the circumstances, Court appointed Ms. Sibangi Chattopadhyay as amicus curiae, to assist the Court in deciding the appeal.
7. It is pertinent to note in this appeal that neither the de facto complainant nor the State has come up here, to challenge the order of the acquittal of the respondent no.2. Necessary is to look for the provision when an appeal against acquittal can be filed and by whom. For this one may note as regards Sections 378 (1) (b), 378 (2) (b), 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. Those provisions are extracted as herein below:-
Page 4 of 5
subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal-
8. Therefore the statutory scheme is only empowering either the State Government through the Public Prosecutor or the complainant himself (when the case was instituted upon complaint), to initiate an appeal in the High Court against the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court. Pertinent is to note in this appeal, that the appellants are not either any instrumentality of State or complainants themselves. Out of curiosity this Court, when looked into the records, could find the appellants to be the witnesses in the trial. Under such circumstances this Court is constrained to hold that none of the appellants were a party to the trial.
9. Since the appellants were not a party to the trial, therefore the appellants do not have the locus standi to maintain this appeal against the judgment of acquittal as impugned. Thus, the appeal should fail on the ground of the appellants having no locus standi and the appeal being not maintainable on this count.
10. The findings as above prompt this Court not to go into the merits of the appeal as that would be redundant in view of the fact that the appeal is not maintainable at all.
Page 5 of 5
11. On the discussion as above it is held that the appeal being C.R.A 550 of 2011 fails and is dismissed.
12. Before parting, the Court appreciates the able assistance put in by the Ld. Amicus Curie in this case. Let the High Court Legal Services Committee take necessary steps to pay her fees in accordance with the scale applicable to “Category-A” lawyer in its panel. The same may be paid within a period of one month from the date. A copy of this order be immediately forwarded to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, for doing the needful.
13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Rai Chattopadhyay,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether appellants, who were merely witnesses in the trial and not the complainants or the State, have locus standi to file an appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 378 CrPC?
Prativa Sinha & Ors.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Rai Chattopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
