Khalid, J.@mdashThis is an application by the complainant in C.C. No. 358 of 1973 on the file of the I Class Magistrate, Nedumangad. The application is made u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The original private complaint disclosed offences punishable under Sections 143 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The accusation against the accused was that they trespassed into the paddy field of the Petitioner and harvested crops. The trial court found accused 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 guilty u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them and sentenced them to six months rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted for the offence u/s 143 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1974 before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum. The appellate court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence. Against this conviction and sentence a revision was filed in this Court. This court as per its order dated 19th July 1976 set aside the conviction and sentence and allowed the Criminal Revision Petition.
2. The prayer in the present application is to set aside the judgment of this Court in Criminal R.P. No. 258 of 1975. The reason set out in the affidavit in support of the application is that the Petitioner, who was the complainant before the trial court, was not made a party in the revision. According to the Petitioner it was deliberately made to get a judgment behind his back. According to the Petitioner, in a criminal revision petition, it is mandatory to make the complainant also a party and an order passed without the complainant being on the party array is not a proper order, since such a revision petition itself is not entertainable in law. Reliance for this contention is placed on Section 401(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (new Code) which reads as follows:
No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (underlining is mine)
The Petitioner''s counsel would contend that the complainant comes within the expression ''other person'' in the said section.
3. The counsel for the Respondents would first contend that the petition is not maintainable. If the order challenged has been passed without jurisdiction or erroneously, the proper remedy for the Petitioner is to move the Supreme Court. The petition u/s 482 is not the proper remedy available to the Petitioner. This objection, according to me, is well-founded.
4. It was further contended by the Respondents'' counsel that reliance by the Petitioner on the words ''other person'' in Section 401 Sub-clause (2) is misplaced, even if a ''complainant'' could be brought within that expression. The complaint started when the old Code was in force. Under the old Code Section 439(2) which corresponded with the present Section 401(2) reads as follows:
No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
The present application should be governed by the provisions of the old Code. The relevant section in that Code does not contain the words'' ''other person''. It is settled law now (vide 1976 KLT 247 S.C.) that the procedure to be adopted for cases which started before the coming into force of the new Code is the procedure under the old Code. On this ground also the application has to go.
5. Now, let us see whether Section 401(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, even if applicable, will help the Petitioner. In a crime, the party really wronged is the State, even though the immediate victim is an individual. It is an act harmful to the society. Such acts ordinarily are proceeded against by the State, so that the offender may be punished. Crimes, therefore; are different from civil wrongs. Even though a criminal proceeding is originally initiated by a private individual, the State has an interest in it. Therefore where a case initiated by a complainant ends in conviction and the matter is taken up in appeal and revision, the real party to be heard is the State and not the individual who is harmed. The object of punishment is to protect the society by preventing the actual offender from committing further offences. It is the State that is primarily interested in preventing the actual offender from repeating the crime. In Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar (1) AIR 1966 S.C. 311 at 917 the Supreme Court observes:
Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book.
6. What the society demands from the State is a protection at least as a measure of disablement, to restrain persons from further harmful activity. Therefore, in a criminal proceeding, the party really to be heard is not the individual who was harmed but the State, which is why restriction is imposed on a private individual, in his right to file an appeal against an acquittal while the power of a State to do so is much wider. Of course, under both cases the court has a discretion. What I wish to emphasise is that the power of the State is wider than the power of an individual. This again is in recognition of the fact that the real person wronged is not the individual but the State.
7. Section 401(2) of the new Code having been brought to my notice, I think it only proper to express myself as to what I feel about the words ''other person'' occurring in that section. The principle of ejusdem generis has to be applied in construing the words ''other person'' in this case. I do not think that it will be proper to interpret these words to include in it a complainant also. What the section says is that no order shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person. Therefore the other person must take the character of the accused or refer to a person who becomes really aggrieved or to whose prejudice an order is passed. If these words are read ejusdem generis with the word accused, then the contention of the Petitioner can be easily answered.
8. The principal governing interpretation of statutes is that when a general word follows particular and specific words of the same nature it is presumed that the general words is restricted to the same genus as the particular words. In other words, the general expression is to be read as comprehending only things of the same kind as that designated by the preceding particular expressions. There is an exception to this principle, that is, where the legislature by express words intended a wider sense. This rule of law of interpretation is generally known as the ejusdem generis rule similar to the rule of noscitur a sociis. Where there are general words followings particular and specific words, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified. Basing on these principles, it has to be held that the word ''other person'' in this section can relate to or refer to only persons to whose prejudice an order is passed. All that I wish to say is that it cannot relate to a complainant in matters where the principal party interested is the State. However, there may be occasions where the complainant is a necessary party in appeals or revisions, as for example, for the disposal of property after trial. I wish to confine myself to the view that the contention of the Petitioner''s counsel, based on Section 401(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code that in all criminal revisions, the complainant should be made a party, does not appear to be correct, and the revision without the complainant being on record does not fail for that reason alone.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the petition is not maintainable. Accordingly the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
