Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Section 195 of the CrPC While Preventing Erosion of Public Trust

Introduction

In the case of M. R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala and Ors.[i]*, *the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the order passed by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court, overturning its erroneous application of the procedural bar under s. 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The said provision barred the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class from taking cognizance of the matter in the absence of a written complaint authorizing the initiation of such action.

This case rightfully garnered significant attention, as the Supreme Court effectively balanced and upheld statutory provisions while ensuring judicial accountability and public trust.

Facts

• Andrew Salvatore (‘Salvatore’), an Australian man, was travelling from Thiruvananthapuram to Mumbai in the 1990s. While being frisked at the airport, two packets of charas, weighing approximately 61.6 grams, were found hidden in his underwear.

• Salvatore was subsequently arrested, and his personal belongings, including his underwear, were seized and kept in police custody. Such belongings were subsequently presented before the trial court and entrusted to the custody of the court clerk (‘Accused 1’).

• A few months later, the Court released Salvatore’s personal belongings, which were handed over to a junior lawyer, Mr. Antony Raju (‘Accused 2’). The items were later returned to Accused 1, and the same was forwarded to the Sessions Court, wherein it was marked as Exhibit Mo2 during the trial.

• Salvatore was convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) but later acquitted by the Kerala High Court, which conducted a practical test and observed a strong possibility of evidence tampering, following which an FIR was lodged against unknown persons for replacing Salvatore’s underwear. Pursuant to the same, the police filed a chargesheet in 2004, alleging that Accused 1 and 2 had conspired to alter the evidence to help Salvatore escape conviction.

• In 2022, both accused filed different applications before the Kerela High Court for quashing the aforementioned criminal proceedings as the conditions envisaged under s. 195(1)(b) of the CrPC for taking cognizance were not satisfied in the present case. Though the Kerala High Court allowed the petition, it passed directions for taking *de novo *steps against the allegations made against the accused. Aggrieved by the Kerala High Court's directions, Accused 2 appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held

In the present matter, the Supreme Court adjudicated whether the proceedings were barred under s. 195(1)(b) of the CrPC and set aside the High Court's order, quashing the criminal proceedings and restoring the cognizance order. Relying on established judicial precedents, the Court reaffirmed the following principles:

• While the procedural requirements under s. 195 of the CrPC are mandatory; the Supreme Court clarified that judicial orders issued in public interest override procedural bars under Section 195 CrPC when they ensure justice. The proceedings could not have been quashed merely due to the absence of written authorization, as the criminal complaint arose from a judicial order rather than a private individual but from a judicial order passed by the Kerala High Court while acquitting Salvadore and ordering an administrative inquiry into apparent misdoings by certain unidentified individuals who planted evidence. Thus, quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis that there was no judicial order sanctioning the same was erroneous, as the proceedings were initiated following a judicial directive for inquiry into evidence tampering.

• The Supreme Court dismissed the Kerala High Court’s observation about the absence of public interest, emphasising that the alleged tampering compromised the judicial process and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the accused had interfered with the prosecution, undermining judicial sanctity and causing a miscarriage of justice.

Our Analysis  

S. 195 of the CrPC prevents frivolous complaints but must not shield corrupt practices that undermine public trust in judicial processes. The Supreme Court reiterated the necessity of preserving judicial integrity while ensuring no procedural bar hinders legitimate investigations.

Using procedural safeguards under s. 195 of the CrPC to obstruct legitimate criminal proceedings would contravene the law’s spirit, especially when public trust in the judiciary is at stake. However, if such beneficial provisions are used to safeguard corrupt offenders, it would undermine the law, particularly as such unlawful acts could erode public trust in judicial processes. The bar envisaged under s. 195 of the CrPC cannot obstruct justice or shield those responsible for committing offences. Thus, it is imperative to ensure that protection given to one does not end up becoming a punishment for the other, particularly when such misuse risks eroding public trust and judicial integrity, the very foundation of the judiciary.

End Note

[i] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3373.

Authored by Anshi Bhatia, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.