JUDGMENT
1. This criminal revision was filed by Dr. Subraminam Swamy Challenging the order of Shri Ajit Bharihoke, special Judge, Delhi dated 26.4.1997 in criminal complaint filed by the revisionist against Mr. P. Chidamberam. By the impugned order the learned Judge refused to take cognizance under Section 190, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “code”), and accordingly dismissed the complaint saying that the complaint did not disclose commission of offence under Sections 11 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Feeling aggrieved, Dr. Sharma filed this revision petition under Section 397/398 read with Section 401 of the Code Notice to show cause was issued to the State vide order dated 19.8.1997. Thereafter vide order dated 5.9.1997 Mr. …. Chidambaram was directed to be made a party and after service on him the matter was listed on 11.12.1997 for hearing and disposal. On that date, Jaspal, Singh, J., during the course of arguments, on examining the original record of the court below, found that the copy of the complaint filed along with the revision petition was different in material particulars from the complaint filed before the court below, but in agreement with the submission made by learned Attorney General that notice need to be given to the C.B.I., ordered issue of notice to the C.B.I. and listed the matter for hearing on 9.1.1998.
2. On 9.1.1998 Mr. K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate counsel for Mr. P. Chidambaram and Mr. Ashok Desai, Attorney General, counsel for C.B.I., at the very outset made a preliminary submission that the revision petition should be thrown out merely on the ground that the revisionist had filed a copy of the complaint which was materially different from the complaint lodged in the court below. On that preliminary objection they made their submissions. The revisionist, Dr. Swamy., appearing in person, sought time to give reply.
3. On the next date of hearing, Dr. Swamy handed over his written submissions and read the same in the Court. Prior to the written submissions Dr. Swamy had filed an affidavit dated 26.12.1997 on 7.1.1998. In that affidavit it has been admitted by him that the thought of amending the complaint and prepared an amended complaint and copy of that amended complaint was made as Annexure-A to the present criminal revision. It has also been admitted therein that though the amended complaint was prepared by him while the matter was before the learned court below but by mistake the amended complaint was not filed in the court below the affidavit further says that the court below proceeded only on the basis of the original complaint and, therefore, this revisional court can proceed only on the original complaint. It has also been stated in the affidavit that the aforesaid mistake of filing of amended complaint along with the revision petitioner was discovered only during the course of argument.
4. Thus it is now admitted that the copy of the complaint at Annexure A filed along with the revision petition is an amended complaint as amended in April 1997. The explanation given is that the petitioner did not know that his Advocate’s clerk never filed the amended complaint in the Special Judge’s Court and the discrepancy about the same could be known to the petitioner only when during the course of arguments when he read certain paragraphs of the amended complaint the same were found not tallying with the original complaint filed before the court below. It has, however, been contended that the error had been committed innocently and inadvertently and that there were no contradictory statements on facts in the two complaints and that the amended complaint only incorporated the revisionist’s knowledge of law obtained by him between filing of the original complaint and the final hearing before the court below. It has also been submitted that if additional facts were to be added in the amended complaint the revisionist/complainant could have gone back to the Sessions Judge with a fresh amended complaint even after dismissal of the original complaint as there was no bar to filing of a fresh complaint.
5. Learned counsel for Mr. Chidambaram and the C.B.I. have invited my attention to the changes made in the amended complaint at Annexure A. A copy of the amended complaint at Annexure A. A copy of the amended complaint showing all such changes (being underlined) has been submitted by them. On giving a look to the so underlined portions it may be seen that all the paragraphs of the complaint there are changes and paragraphs 10,11 and 12 are altogether new. On comparison of the original complaint and the amended complaint there is no issue now left that there have been omission, substitutions and additions in the amended complaint and that the amended complaint filed along with the revision petition is materially different from the original complaint filed before the court below.
6. At page 2 of the revision petition the averments are that the petitioner filed his complaint against Shri P. Chidambaram for taking cognizance for offences under Sections 11 and 13 of the Prevention of corruption Act and a copy of the complaint is enclosed as ANNEXURE “A” whereas now it is admitted that Annexure A is not the copy of the complaint filed before the court below and that it is an amended complaint.
7. In this revision petition it is to be noted that arguments were being heard by Jaspal Singh, J. without any objection from the side of the respondents that the copy of the complaint at Annexure A was not the correct copy of the complaint filed before the court below, obviously because they had not noticed the same. During the course of arguments, it was Jaspal Singh, J. who, on examining the original record of the court below, had noticed that the copy of the complaint filed along with the petition was different in material particulars from the complaint filed before the court below. The discovery was detected when the petitioner began reading out certain paragraphs in the amended versions of the complaint which did not tally with the original version of the complaint filed before the trial court.
8. It has been submitted by the Attorney General that had Jaspal Singh, J. not meticulously compared the copy of the complaint filed at Annexure A with the original complaint filed before the court below no body would have noticed the difference and the impugned order would have been scrutinised by the Hon’ble Judge of the basis of the copy at Annexure A and grave miscarriage of justice could have been done and might be the same be not detected in future as well. Mr. Ashok Desaia frankly conceded that neither he nor his juniors had detected the difference in the original complaint and the copy of the complaint filed here.
9. The submissions of the Attorney General and Mr. K. Parasaran are that no one should be allowed to file a materially different copy of the document in the revisional court and when ducted be permitted to proceed with the revision by filing correct copy of the complaint. They say that complaint is the foundation of the Revisionist’s case and, therefore, if a different copy of the same is filed with the revision petitioner the petition should be thrown out without going into the merits of the case.
10. I have carefully considered the submission of the Attorney General and Mr. K. Parasaran on the one hand and the submissions made by Dr. Swamy on the other. In the view of the averment made in the revision petition this court would have naturally taken Annexure A as the copy of the complaint filed by the revisionist in the court below. Even if in the copy at Annexure A the words “as amended on April 1997′ were taken note of this Court would not have thought that such amended complaint was not filed in the court below during the proceedings there. The copy filed along with the revision petition is generally taken to be the correct copy of the complaint filed in the court below and the counsel appearing for respondents never raise any doubt about the correctness of the same. They argue on the basis of the averments 4:79H7m2m9:IOH made therein to test correctness of the impugned order. Therefore, nobody can deny that if a copy of the complaint which is not the correct copy of the complaint filed before the court below in a complaint case is filed in the revisional court the respondents are bound to be highly prejudicated because the revisional court will test the correctness of the impugned order on the basis of the averments made in such incorrect copy of the complaint filed in the revisional court. A question arises whether the revision petition should be dismissed on this sole ground. The Attorney General and Mr. K. Parasaran contended that the revisional jurisdiction is discretionary one and the court in such circumstances should refuse to exercise revisional jurisdiction.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case before me, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that the revision be dismissed. The revisionist is not the affected person. It was only in the nature public interest litigation that he filed the complaint before the court below. Admittedly he has, on gaining better legal knowledge, amended the complaint to make out a better case for prosecution of Mr. P. Chidambaram for offences under Sections 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As already observed above, the amended complaint is materially different from the complaint lodged in the court below. The revisionist claims that he could have filed a fresh complaint on the basis of amended complaint even after dismissal of the original complaint. Further a message should also go that revisionists may not be heard if the copy of the complaint filed along with the revision petition is materially different from the complaint lodged in the court below as such conduct on their part may lead, to grave miscarriage of justice.
12. Since Crl. M. 19/98 moved to Mr. P. Chidambaram for initiating proceedings against the revisionist under Section 193 of the Code for fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in judicial proceedings has been moved and is still pending for disposal, I am not expressing my opinion in this order whether the act of filing of a different amended complaint with the revision petition was intentional or was only an outcome of an inadvertent error on the part of the clerk of the counsel for the revisionist.
13. In view of the above, I reject the revision petition without going into the merit of the matter.