Can the conviction of a contract labourer for diverting municipal water be set aside because the FIR was lodged by an officer without statutory authority?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a person who works as a contract laborer for a municipal water supply corporation is arrested after the investigating agency files an FIR alleging that the laborer deliberately tapped into a public water main and diverted the flow for personal use, thereby causing loss of water to the public and constituting an offence under the State Water Supply Act. The FIR records that the laborer was caught on camera siphoning water, and the prosecution subsequently secured a conviction in the trial court, imposing a term of imprisonment and a fine. The laborer does not dispute that water was diverted, but contends that the prosecution was instituted by an unauthorized authority, rendering the conviction legally infirm.

The State Water Supply Act contains a provision analogous to Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act, stipulating that prosecutions for offences “against the Act” may be instituted only by the Government, a Water Inspector, or a person who has suffered a direct grievance from the offence. In the present case, the FIR was lodged by a senior officer of the municipal corporation who was not a Water Inspector and who had not personally suffered any loss; the corporation itself had not filed a formal complaint either. Consequently, the laborer’s legal problem is not a factual dispute over the act of diversion but a procedural defect: the prosecution may be deemed incompetent because it was not launched by a person authorized under the statute.

At the trial stage, the laborer’s defence counsel argued that the factual evidence was insufficient to prove dishonest intent, yet the trial court accepted the prosecution’s case and convicted. The labourer’s subsequent appeal to the district court focused on the alleged lack of intent, but the appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the factual findings were conclusive. The labourer’s counsel then realised that a mere factual defence would not overturn the conviction because the appellate court had already accepted the evidence as reliable. What remained unaddressed was the statutory requirement concerning who may institute the prosecution, a point that the lower courts had not examined.

Recognizing that the procedural flaw could not be remedied by a standard appeal on the merits, the labourer’s counsel decided to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a criminal revision petition. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, a revision is the appropriate remedy when a subordinate court commits a jurisdictional error or fails to consider a point of law that is material to the conviction. The revision petition specifically challenges the validity of the prosecution on the ground that the FIR was not filed by an authorized person as mandated by the State Water Supply Act.

The revision petition outlines three core submissions. First, it asserts that the offence falls squarely within the definition of an “offence against the Act,” because the provision creates a distinct penal consequence for unauthorized water diversion, mirroring the theft‑like language of the Electricity Act. Second, it emphasizes that the statutory bar on who may institute prosecution is mandatory, not directory, and that the burden of proving compliance lies on the State. Third, it points out that the record contains no evidence that the municipal officer acted as a Water Inspector or that the corporation filed a formal complaint, thereby leaving the prosecution without a lawful foundation.

In support of these submissions, the petition cites precedents where High Courts have set aside convictions on similar grounds, noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab clarified that the onus of proving the authorized initiation of prosecution rests on the State. The labourer’s counsel, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, prepares a detailed annexure of the FIR, the charge sheet, and the statutory provisions, highlighting the absence of any reference to a Water Inspector’s involvement or a grievance‑based complaint.

The procedural posture of the case makes a revision the most suitable remedy. An ordinary appeal would merely re‑examine the factual matrix, which has already been adjudicated. A petition for bail or a revision of sentence would not address the jurisdictional defect. Only a criminal revision before the High Court can scrutinise the legality of the prosecution itself and, if successful, quash the conviction and the FIR.

Upon filing, the revision petition triggers the High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a revision under the Criminal Procedure Code. The court may either dismiss the petition if it finds the prosecution valid, or, after hearing the State, may direct that the FIR be set aside for lack of statutory authority. If the High Court finds merit in the petition, it can pass an order quashing the conviction, directing the release of the labourer from custody, and directing the investigating agency to close the case.

The labourer’s counsel also anticipates the State’s possible defence that the municipal officer, by virtue of his official capacity, qualifies as a “person aggrieved” under the Act. To counter this, the petition argues that the statutory language requires a direct personal grievance, not a generic administrative interest, and that jurisprudence interprets “person aggrieved” narrowly. The petition therefore requests the court to interpret the provision purposively, ensuring that the protective intent of the statute—to prevent frivolous prosecutions by unrelated officials—is upheld.

In preparing the case, the labourer’s team consulted several lawyers in Chandigarh High Court who have experience in statutory interpretation of similar regulatory statutes. Their insights helped shape the argument that the State’s reliance on a generic administrative grievance is untenable. The petition therefore also seeks a declaration that the State’s interpretation is erroneous, thereby establishing a precedent for future prosecutions under the Water Supply Act.

Should the Punjab and Haryana High Court grant the revision, the immediate relief would be the quashing of the conviction and the release of the labourer from any remaining custodial sentence. In addition, the court may order the investigating agency to delete the FIR from its records, preventing any future re‑initiation of proceedings on the same facts. The decision would also serve a broader public‑policy purpose by reinforcing the statutory safeguard that only authorized persons may prosecute offences under the Act.

In summary, the labourer’s legal problem stems not from the factual act of water diversion but from a procedural defect in the initiation of the prosecution. Because the ordinary factual defence was exhausted at the appellate level, the appropriate remedy lies in filing a criminal revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The revision specifically challenges the statutory requirement that only the Government, a Water Inspector, or a person aggrieved may institute prosecution, and seeks to have the conviction set aside on the ground of jurisdictional incompetence of the prosecution.

Question: Does the fact that the municipal officer who lodged the FIR was neither a Water Inspector nor a person who suffered a direct grievance render the prosecution legally incompetent under the statutory requirement governing who may institute proceedings?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the labourer was arrested after a senior officer of the municipal water supply corporation filed an FIR alleging illegal diversion of water. The governing provision in the State Water Supply Act expressly limits the initiation of prosecutions for offences against the Act to three categories: the Government, a Water Inspector, or a person who has suffered a direct grievance. The officer who lodged the FIR performed his duties as an administrative official but did not hold the statutory title of Water Inspector, nor did he demonstrate a personal loss of water supply. Consequently, the prosecution appears to have been instituted by an unauthorised person. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the onus of proving compliance with the statutory prerequisite lies on the State, and the record contains no evidence of such compliance. The investigative agency’s report and the charge sheet do not reference any Water Inspector’s involvement or a formal complaint by the corporation, which would be necessary to satisfy the “person aggrieved” limb. This procedural defect is not merely technical; it strikes at the jurisdictional foundation of the criminal proceeding. If the High Court accepts that the prosecution was instituted by an unauthorised person, the entire proceeding is void ab initio, and any conviction derived therefrom must be set aside. The practical implication for the accused is the potential quashing of the conviction and release from custody, while the State would be required to either re‑initiate proceedings through a proper authorised person or abandon the case. The High Court’s assessment will hinge on a purposive interpretation of the statutory language, ensuring that the protective intent of the Act—to prevent frivolous prosecutions by unrelated officials—is upheld. This analysis underscores why the procedural flaw, rather than the factual dispute over water diversion, is the pivotal issue demanding legal assessment.

Question: What is the legal effect of a procedural defect concerning the authority to institute prosecution on an already‑rendered conviction, and can the conviction be set aside without revisiting the factual findings?

Answer: The conviction obtained in the trial court and affirmed on appeal was based on a factual determination that the labourer diverted water. However, the procedural defect identified—failure to satisfy the statutory requirement that only an authorised person may commence prosecution—constitutes a jurisdictional error. Under criminal procedural law, a jurisdictional defect invalidates the entire proceeding, irrespective of the merits of the factual evidence. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would explain that the High Court, when entertaining a criminal revision, is empowered to examine whether the subordinate court erred in law or exceeded its jurisdiction. Since the lower courts never addressed the statutory limitation on who may institute prosecution, the revision petition raises a point of law that is material to the conviction. The High Court can quash the conviction on the ground that the prosecution was incompetent, without needing to reassess the evidence of water diversion or the accused’s intent. This approach respects the principle that a court cannot lend legitimacy to a judgment founded on an unlawful process. For the accused, the practical implication is the immediate release from any remaining custodial sentence and the removal of the criminal record, provided the High Court finds merit in the revision. For the complainant and the State, the effect is the loss of the conviction and the necessity to either re‑file a fresh FIR through an authorised Water Inspector or a proper grievance‑based complaint, or to abandon the prosecution altogether. The prosecution’s inability to demonstrate compliance with the statutory prerequisite means that the conviction is vulnerable to being set aside, reinforcing the doctrine that procedural safeguards are integral to the fairness of criminal proceedings.

Question: Why is a criminal revision the appropriate remedy in this scenario rather than a standard appeal or a petition for bail, and what scope does the Punjab and Haryana High Court have to address the jurisdictional issue?

Answer: The factual issues surrounding the diversion of water have already been exhaustively litigated in the trial court and on appeal, with the appellate court affirming the conviction on the basis of the evidence. A standard appeal is limited to re‑examining factual findings and legal conclusions that were previously considered; it cannot introduce a fresh point of law that the lower courts failed to address. Similarly, a petition for bail or revision of sentence deals with the continuance of custody or the quantum of punishment, not the validity of the prosecution itself. In contrast, a criminal revision under the criminal procedural code is expressly designed to correct jurisdictional errors, illegal orders, or failure to consider a material point of law by a subordinate court. The labourer’s counsel, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, therefore filed a revision petition to raise the previously unexamined statutory requirement that only an authorised person may institute prosecution. The High Court’s jurisdiction in a revision includes the power to quash an order or decree that is illegal, ultra vires, or passed without jurisdiction. This enables the court to scrutinise the legality of the FIR and the charge sheet, assess whether the prosecution complied with the statutory precondition, and, if not, set aside the conviction. The practical implication is that the High Court can provide a definitive resolution to the procedural defect, thereby delivering relief that cannot be obtained through ordinary appellate mechanisms. The State, on the other hand, will have the opportunity to argue that the municipal officer qualifies as a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of the Act, but the High Court will evaluate that contention on the merits of statutory interpretation, not on the factual evidence of water diversion. Thus, the revision is the sole avenue that permits the High Court to address the jurisdictional flaw and potentially nullify the conviction.

Question: How might the State argue that the municipal officer qualifies as a “person aggrieved” under the Act, and what legal principles guide the interpretation of that term in the context of this case?

Answer: The State is likely to contend that the municipal officer, by virtue of his official capacity, suffered a grievance because the diversion of water reduced the supply available for municipal distribution, thereby affecting his administrative responsibilities. To support this position, the State may submit that the statutory language does not require a personal loss in the strict sense but merely a grievance arising from the offence’s impact on the officer’s duties. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, familiar with jurisprudence on similar statutory provisions, would point to case law that interprets “person aggrieved” narrowly, emphasizing that the term is intended to limit prosecutions to those who have a direct, personal stake, not to extend to generic administrative interests. The Supreme Court’s decision in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab clarified that the burden of proving the authorised initiation of prosecution rests on the State and that “person aggrieved” must be read purposively to prevent frivolous prosecutions. Moreover, the principle of statutory construction requires that ambiguous terms be interpreted in a manner that furthers the legislative intent, which in this context is to safeguard against prosecutions by unrelated officials. The labourer’s counsel, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, would argue that the municipal officer’s grievance is indirect and that the corporation itself did not file a formal complaint, further weakening the State’s position. The legal principle of “jurisdictional competence” dictates that unless the State can produce concrete evidence—such as a written grievance or a formal complaint—demonstrating that the officer suffered a direct loss, the prosecution remains unauthorised. The High Court’s analysis will therefore focus on the nature of the grievance, the statutory purpose, and the evidentiary burden, potentially leading to a finding that the officer does not satisfy the “person aggrieved” criterion, resulting in the quashing of the conviction.

Question: Why is a criminal revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the proper remedy for the labourer’s conviction rather than a further appeal on the merits?

Answer: The labourer’s conviction was affirmed by the trial court and the district appellate court on the basis of the factual evidence that he diverted water, and both courts accepted the prosecution’s case without examining the statutory requirement that only a Government, a Water Inspector, or a directly aggrieved person may institute prosecution. Because the factual matrix has already been exhaustively litigated, any additional appeal on the merits would merely re‑evaluate the same evidence and would be barred by the principle that a higher court cannot revisit findings that have been finally decided on facts. The procedural defect, however, raises a question of law and jurisdiction that the lower courts failed to consider. Under the criminal procedural framework, a revision is the appropriate remedy when a subordinate court commits a jurisdictional error or neglects to address a point of law material to the conviction. The Punjab and Haryana High Court possesses the authority to entertain such a revision because it is the apex court for the state and can scrutinise whether the prosecution was lawfully instituted. The labourer’s counsel, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, therefore files a revision petition that specifically challenges the legality of the FIR and the charge sheet on the ground that the initiating officer was not authorized under the Water Supply Act. This approach bypasses the factual dispute and directly attacks the foundation of the conviction, seeking a declaration that the prosecution was incompetent and that the conviction must be set aside. By focusing on the jurisdictional flaw, the revision aligns with the procedural posture of the case and avoids the futility of another factual appeal, offering the only realistic avenue for relief at this stage.

Question: How does the statutory limitation on who may institute prosecution create jurisdiction for the High Court, and why is a factual defence alone insufficient to overturn the conviction?

Answer: The Water Supply Act expressly limits the initiation of criminal proceedings to three categories: the Government, a Water Inspector, or a person who has suffered a direct grievance. This limitation is a substantive condition precedent to the existence of a valid prosecution. When the investigating agency files an FIR through a senior municipal officer who does not fall within any of these categories, the prosecution is rendered ultra vires the statute. The High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a revision stems from its power to correct jurisdictional errors made by subordinate courts. Because the lower courts never examined whether the FIR complied with the statutory prerequisite, they erred in law, and the High Court can intervene to determine the validity of the prosecution itself. A factual defence, such as disputing intent or the amount of water diverted, does not address the core defect that the prosecution was instituted by an unauthorized person. Even if the factual defence were successful, the conviction would still rest on an unlawful foundation, making any relief precarious. Moreover, the appellate courts have already affirmed the factual findings, indicating that the factual defence has been exhausted. The only remaining issue is the legality of the process that gave rise to the conviction. By raising the jurisdictional defect, the revision petition asks the High Court to apply its supervisory jurisdiction, assess whether the statutory condition was satisfied, and, if not, to quash the FIR and the conviction. This legal route is essential because it attacks the root of the conviction rather than the peripheral factual allegations, which have already been settled.

Question: Why might the accused seek a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, and what role do lawyers in Chandigarh High Court play in preparing and filing the revision petition?

Answer: Although the revision is filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the accused may look for a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court because the High Court sits in Chandigarh and many practitioners maintain chambers there. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court is familiar with the local court rules, filing procedures, and the administrative staff who process revision petitions. This familiarity ensures that the petition complies with the procedural formalities, such as proper annexure of the FIR, charge sheet, and statutory provisions, and that the petition is presented in a format that the registry accepts without delay. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court also have experience in drafting precise grounds of challenge that focus on jurisdictional defects, which is crucial for convincing the bench that the matter warrants its intervention. They can advise the accused on the timing of interim relief applications, such as a stay of execution of the sentence or a direction for release from custody while the revision is pending. Additionally, these practitioners often have networks with senior counsel who specialize in statutory interpretation of regulatory statutes like the Water Supply Act, enabling the accused to benefit from expert arguments on the narrow meaning of “person aggrieved.” By engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, the accused ensures that the revision petition is not only technically sound but also strategically framed to highlight the procedural illegality, thereby increasing the likelihood that the High Court will entertain the petition and consider quashing the conviction.

Question: What procedural steps must the accused follow after filing the revision petition, including any interim relief, and how can the Punjab and Haryana High Court exercise its power to quash the FIR and set aside the conviction?

Answer: Once the revision petition is filed, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issues a notice to the State, directing it to file a response within a stipulated period. The accused, through his lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, must ensure that the petition includes a prayer for interim relief, such as a direction to release the accused from custody or to stay the execution of the sentence pending determination of the revision. The court may grant such interim relief if it is satisfied that the allegations of jurisdictional defect raise a serious question of law and that the accused’s liberty is at stake. After the State’s reply, the High Court may either decide the matter on the papers or order a hearing where both parties can present oral arguments. During the hearing, the court examines whether the prosecution was instituted by an authorized person as required by the Water Supply Act. If the court finds that the statutory condition was not met, it can invoke its inherent power to set aside the FIR, declare the prosecution incompetent, and quash the conviction. The court may also direct the investigating agency to delete the FIR from its records, thereby preventing any future re‑initiation of proceedings on the same facts. In addition, the court can order that the accused be released from any remaining custodial sentence and that any fines be cancelled. The decision, once pronounced, is binding on the lower courts and the State, and it resolves the matter definitively by addressing the procedural defect that underlies the entire case. This procedural pathway underscores why the accused must act promptly, secure competent representation, and follow the High Court’s directions to obtain the ultimate relief of quashing the conviction.

Question: How should the accused’s counsel evaluate the risk of continued detention while the revision petition is pending, and what bail strategy can be pursued in the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the labourer has already served part of the sentence imposed by the trial court and remains in custody after the appellate affirmation. Because the revision challenges a jurisdictional defect rather than the merits, the High Court may take several weeks or months to dispose of the petition. During this interval, the accused faces the risk of unnecessary deprivation of liberty, which can aggravate the punitive impact and affect his employment and family. A prudent lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will first examine the custody record, noting the date of conviction, the term already served, and any pending sentence. The counsel should then assess whether the High Court’s procedural rules permit a bail application on the ground of “question of law” or “jurisdictional infirmity” of the prosecution. The bail petition must articulate that the statutory provision governing who may institute prosecution has not been complied with, rendering the conviction void ab initio; consequently, the continued detention lacks legal foundation. The argument should be supported by the absence of any Water Inspector’s report or grievance from the municipal corporation, as highlighted in the revision. The lawyer will also gather medical or personal hardship evidence to satisfy the court’s discretion on bail. While filing, the counsel must ensure that the bail application is accompanied by a copy of the revision petition, the FIR, charge sheet, and a draft order for release, thereby demonstrating that the High Court is already reviewing the core issue. If bail is granted, the accused can be released pending the final decision, mitigating the risk of serving an unlawful sentence. Conversely, if bail is denied, the counsel should be prepared to file an interim application for release on health grounds, emphasizing that the prosecution’s lack of statutory authority makes continued incarceration punitive rather than corrective. This dual‑track approach balances the immediate liberty concern with the longer‑term objective of quashing the conviction on jurisdictional grounds.

Question: Which documentary materials must be scrutinised to establish that the prosecution was not instituted by an authorised person, and how should lawyers in Chandigarh High Court organise this evidence?

Answer: The core of the revision hinges on proving that the FIR was lodged by an individual who does not fall within the categories prescribed by the statutory provision. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court will begin by obtaining the original FIR, the charge sheet, and any accompanying annexures that record the name, designation, and authority of the reporting officer. The counsel must also request the municipal corporation’s internal communications, such as memos, orders, or minutes that could reveal whether a Water Inspector was consulted or whether the corporation formally complained. The absence of a Water Inspector’s signature or reference is a critical piece of evidence. Additionally, the lawyer should secure the service register of the municipal corporation to confirm whether any grievance was lodged by a person directly aggrieved by the water diversion. The investigative agency’s report, if any, should be examined for statements indicating the basis of the investigation and whether it relied on a statutory grievance. All these documents should be compiled into a chronological bundle, with each document indexed and cross‑referenced to the relevant paragraph of the revision petition. The counsel must highlight any inconsistencies, such as a senior officer acting beyond his statutory remit, and annotate the statutory provision’s language on “person aggrieved” to demonstrate the narrow interpretation required. The lawyer will also prepare an affidavit from a senior official of the municipal corporation confirming that no formal complaint was filed and that the officer acted in an administrative capacity only. By presenting a cohesive documentary trail that shows the prosecution’s initiation lacked statutory authority, the counsel can persuade the High Court that the jurisdictional defect is undeniable. The meticulous organisation of these documents not only aids the judge’s comprehension but also pre‑empts any claim by the State that ancillary paperwork satisfies the statutory requirement.

Question: In what way does the complainant’s lack of a direct grievance affect the validity of the prosecution, and how can the accused’s counsel argue this point before the High Court?

Answer: The statutory provision expressly limits the right to prosecute to the Government, a Water Inspector, or a person who has suffered a direct grievance. The municipal corporation, while an interested public body, did not suffer a personal loss; the water loss was a public inconvenience rather than a specific grievance. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will argue that the corporation’s interest is collective and does not satisfy the “person aggrressed” criterion, which jurisprudence interprets narrowly to require a personal, concrete injury. The counsel should cite precedent where courts have held that a generic administrative interest does not confer standing to initiate prosecution. By demonstrating that the senior officer’s report was motivated by administrative oversight rather than a personal grievance, the accused’s team can show that the prosecution lacks a statutory foundation. The argument must also address any State contention that the corporation, as a statutory body, can be deemed a “person aggrieved.” The lawyer will differentiate between the corporation’s statutory duties and the individual’s right to seek redress for a personal loss. The counsel can submit an affidavit from a senior municipal official confirming that no individual employee suffered a loss of water supply or revenue, and that the diversion was discovered through routine monitoring. This evidence underscores that the grievance element is missing. Moreover, the lawyer will emphasize that allowing any public authority to prosecute without a direct grievance would defeat the protective purpose of the statutory limitation, opening the door to frivolous prosecutions. By framing the argument around the statutory intent to restrict prosecutions to those with a personal stake, the counsel can persuade the High Court that the prosecution is ultra vires, thereby warranting the quashing of the conviction.

Question: How can the accused’s legal team demonstrate that the procedural defect concerning the unauthorised initiation of prosecution is a jurisdictional error that justifies a criminal revision?

Answer: A criminal revision is the appropriate remedy when a subordinate court fails to consider a point of law that is material to the conviction. The lawyer in Chandigarh High Court must first establish that the trial court and the appellate court never examined the statutory requirement governing who may institute prosecution. The counsel will highlight that the record contains no reference to a Water Inspector’s involvement or a grievance filing, and that the courts merely accepted the factual evidence of water diversion. By pointing out this omission, the lawyer demonstrates a jurisdictional lapse: the courts proceeded on the assumption that the prosecution was valid, ignoring a mandatory statutory precondition. The legal team should prepare a concise statement of law, quoting the statutory provision’s language on authorised persons, and argue that the omission is not a mere procedural irregularity but a fatal defect that vitiates the jurisdiction of the prosecuting authority. The counsel will also reference the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that the burden of proving compliance with such statutory conditions rests on the State, and that failure to do so renders the prosecution incompetent. By filing the revision, the accused seeks a declaration that the prosecution was ultra vires, which is a classic ground for quashing. The lawyer will attach the relevant excerpts from the FIR, charge sheet, and the judgment of the appellate court, highlighting the absence of any discussion on the authorised initiator. The argument will be reinforced by the principle that a conviction based on an unauthorised prosecution is a nullity, and that the High Court has the power to set aside the conviction and order release. By framing the defect as jurisdictional, the counsel aligns the case with the established scope of criminal revision, thereby increasing the likelihood of the High Court intervening.

Question: What are the probable arguments the State may raise regarding the senior officer’s standing as a “person aggrieved,” and how should the accused’s counsel counter them to preserve the revision’s prospects?

Answer: The State is likely to contend that the senior municipal officer, by virtue of his official capacity, qualifies as a “person aggrieved” because the diversion affected the corporation’s water supply and potentially its revenue. To counter this, the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must dissect the statutory language and demonstrate that “person aggrieved” is intended to refer to an individual who suffers a direct, personal loss, not a corporate entity or an officer acting in an administrative role. The counsel will present case law where courts have interpreted the term narrowly, emphasizing personal injury or loss of rights. An affidavit from the corporation’s finance department can be used to show that no loss of revenue was recorded due to the diversion, underscoring the absence of a concrete grievance. Additionally, the lawyer will argue that the officer’s duty to enforce the Act does not transform his administrative function into a personal grievance. By highlighting the distinction between regulatory enforcement and personal injury, the counsel can persuade the High Court that the State’s reliance on a generic administrative interest is untenable. The argument should also reference the purpose of the statutory limitation, which is to prevent frivolous prosecutions by unrelated officials, thereby reinforcing the need for a strict reading of “person aggrieved.” The lawyer will further submit that allowing any officer to claim standing would erode the safeguard embedded in the statute, leading to unchecked prosecutions. By systematically dismantling the State’s standing argument and reinforcing the narrow, purposive interpretation of the statutory provision, the accused’s counsel can preserve the integrity of the revision and enhance the prospect of the conviction being quashed.