State Govt A 'Party Interested' Under Section 406 CrPC; Entitled To Seek Transfer Of Case From Another State : Supreme Court

The Bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan directed that Ansari would be handed over to the custody of State of Uttar Pradesh within two weeks.

"It is directed that Mukhtar Ansari is handed over to the custody of UP within 2 weeks. He shall be lodged in Banda Jail. Jail Superintendent of Banda Jail will extend medical facilities", the Bench held.

Ansari's plea seeking for transfer, however, was dismissed.

In allowing Uttar Pradesh Government's appeal, the Supreme Court, while not delving into whether the petition was maintainable under Article 32,held that a State as "party interested" under Section 406 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta appearing on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh, averred that the Writ Petition was maintainable under Article 32 "for the reason that the administration of Criminal Justice is bestowed upon the State on behalf of the victims of crime and also, on the premise that a crime against a citizen is a crime against the State".

Reliance was placed on case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan with the SG further contending that the plea had also been filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the State could be deemed to be a "Party Interested" as per Section 406(2) as the term was to be interpreted widely.

"It is submitted that the words 'Party Interested' are of a wide import, therefore, wider meaning is to be given to include the State also as much as purpose of Criminal Justice Administration is to preserve and protect the rule of law".

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the State of Punjab and the Jail Superintendent, submitted that the plea was not maintainable as the sole objective of Article 32 was the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Therefore, the Petitioner being a State could not agitate violation of fundamental rights.

The submission of Dave was echoed by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Ansari, who further contended that as none of the victims/complainants had approached the Court seeking relief, the absence of the same would not entitle the State to seek the relief in its stead.

"It is submitted that the fair trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is meant to protect the interest of the accused and the witnesses and it is not open for the State to allege that fair trial requires custodial presence of the accused…It is submitted that powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India cannot be utilised to take away a citizen's fundamental rights".

It was further argued by the two Senior Counsels that an Application under Section 406 could only be moved by the Attorney-General or the "Party Interested", and the State of UP did not fall in either of the categories.

WHAT DID THE COURT SAY?

The Court, referring to Section 406 of CrPC, noted that a plain reading of the same contradicted the Respondents' contention that State of UP was not a "party interested".

"It is difficult to accept the submissions of the Respondents to say that the Petitioner-State is not a party interested. It is well said that a crime against an individual is to be considered as a crime against a State and public at large".

Observing that in a criminal administrative system, the State was a prosecuting agency, working for and on behalf of the people of the State, it could be deemed to be a "party interested" as the terms were of a "wide import and, therefore, have to be interpreted by giving a wider meaning".

"The words such as 'aggrieved party', 'party to the proceedings' and 'party interested' are used in various Statutes. If the words used are to the effect 'party to the proceedings' or 'party to a case', it can be given a restricted meaning'. In such cases, the intention of the legislature is clear to give restricted meaning. But, at the same time, the words used as 'party interested', which are not defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, have to be given a wider meaning".

Stating that it is a well-settled principle of law that a Statute must be interpreted to advance the cause of the Statute and not defeat the same, the Court held that the State, being a prosecuting agency in Criminal Administration, is vitally interested in such administration.

The Court further relied upon the judgement in the case of K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police & Ors to support the case of the State of UP and accepted that they were a party interested within the meaning of Section 406(2).

However, by holding the aforementioned, the Court did not consider it necessary to decide the issue pertaining to the maintainability of the petition under Article 32.