Informant Is Entitled To Opportunity Of Hearing In Discharge Application Of Accused: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has reiterated that a first informant has a right to audience in the discharge application filed by the accused before the Court. 

To observe thus, the bench of Justice Amit Borkar relied upon the High Court's 2020 ruling in the case of Prakash C. Sheth vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr, wherein it was held that the first informant is entitled to hearing in Revision Application claiming discharge by the accused.

The case in brief

In this case, the applicant (informant) filed an application before the Magistrate's court (Metropolitan Magistrate, 64th Court Esplanade, Mumbai) seeking an audience in the discharge application filed by the accused. The said application was contested by the accused No.2 by arguing that the applicant has no right to file such an application.

The Magistrate rejected the application holding that the applicant had not sought the required permission from the Court under sections 301 (Appearance by Public Prosecutors) and 302 (Permission to conduct the prosecution) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. 

Pursuant to this, the applicant/informant challenged the order of the Magistrate before the High Court by way of filing the instant criminal revision application.

Having heard the parties, the Court perused the application filed by the applicant/informant and noted that the averments made therein constituted seeking permission under Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 

The Court also noted that the Magistrate court had distinguished the ruling in the case of Prakash C. Sheth (supra) by holding that it is at the stage of revision that the first informant is entitled to be heard.

However, the Court rejected this interpretation of the Court and further, referring to HC's judgment in the case of Prakash C. Sheth (supra), it noted that the Magistrate ought to have allowed the application filed by the informant.

"If the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court is considered as a whole, it is clear that locus of the first informant has been considered by this Court and has held that the person being the first informant is entitled to the opportunity of hearing. 8. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Magistrate ought to have allowed the application for intervention filed by the applicant," the Court remarked as it allowed the application.

Case title - Prakash C. Sheth v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. [CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 485

Click Here To Read/Download Order