Madras High Court
Superintendent Of Police,Central ... vs Dinesh Kumar Bandari, Mukesh Kumar ... on 3 June, 2002
Author: A.K. Rajan
Bench: A.K. Rajan
ORDER A.K. Rajan, J.
1. Petition filed to call for the records in charge-sheet dated 31.07.1990 in S. T. C. No. 2 of 1989 on the file of the Special Judge for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Madras, by directing him to take the case on file.
2. The respondents herein who are the accused before the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Madras, were charge sheeted for alleged violation of the provisions of Clause 7 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order 1956. The offences are said to have taken place some time prior to 1988. These respondents are alleged to have acquired iron and steel without having proper licence as per the Iron and Steel Control Order by using licence granted to another company called Belgium Engineering Works, Thiruppur. The earlier charge sheet dated 31.12.1988 was rejected and the proceedings were dropped by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Madras. Subsequent to that a fresh charge sheet has been filed in which the company was also added as one of the accused and that charge sheet was also rejected by the same learned Judge. Against that the above Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the prosecution.
3. According to the complaint, the accused were said to have violated the provisions of Clause 7 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order. The learned Special Judge considered this aspect and found that such violations could have been committed only by Belgium Engineering Works, Tiruppur in whose name the licence stands. (acquiring iron and steel for one purpose and using it for another purpose); Since Belgium Engineering Works, Tiruppur is not an accused these accused/respondents cannot be prosecuted for that offence. Learned Special Judge has not gone into any other aspect; he has not considered any other provisions under the same Control Order. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has also pointed out that some other provisions (Clause 4) had been violated by these accused/respondents and, therefore, the charge sheet could not have been rejected.
4. On the facts of the case, if any provisions of the Control Order is found to be violated, then the prosecution can lie by those offences. There is no impediment for the Court to alter these charges or for the prosecution to file amended charge sheet. In this case, this second "charge sheet" has been rejected and the proceedings were closed only on the ground that the earlier charge sheet has been rejected and the second charge sheet has been filed without any new material.
5. The only ground on which the second charge has been rejected is that the said second charge sheet has been filed without any new materials. It is undisputable that a "Sessions Court" has to frame charges, it also can amend the charges at any stage, the Special Court has to follow warrant procedure. Though the case has to be tried summarily, the procedure to be adopted is only warrant procedure, as the case is initiated by a police report; only the provisions contained in Sections 263 to 265 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is applicable. The mere fact that complaint was rejected does not prohibit the authorities to file a fresh charge sheet bringing new materials, in the sense, adding new parties as accused on the very same facts. Therefore, the rejection of the complaint on the ground that earlier charge sheet has been rejected and hence the subsequent charge sheet cannot lie, is not valid. Therefore, the order of the Presiding Officer rejecting the complaint is liable to be set aside and hence, it is set aside.
6. So far as the order of discharge with respect to the offence under Clause 7 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order is concerned, it could have been committed only by Belgium Engineering Works. The case of the prosecution is that the accused/respondents before this Court had acquired iron and steel committing forgery, in the name of Belgium Engineering Works and made use of it for some other purpose. Therefore, the charge sheet/complaint ought not to have been rejected. The Court could have seen whether any violation of the Control Order has been made out or not, before rejecting the charge sheet/complaint. In this case, the Court did not look into any other provisions of the Control Order. Even though the offence under Clause 7 of the provisions of Iron and Steel (Control) Order may not have been committed by the accused, it appears that some other violations of the Control Order have been committed by the accused. Therefore, it is for the Court to consider the control order in its entirety and to find out whether there is any violation of the provisions of the Control Order and the Court may proceed further; it is open to the prosecution to file fresh charge sheet also considering this aspect.
7. It is very unfortunate that this case is pending from the year 1988. On the facts of this case it appears that the prosecution was not really interested or diligent in prosecuting the case; it appears to be only a 'stage play' by the prosecution to show as if the prosecuting agency is interested in prosecuting the case; in fact it appears that there was no real intention on the part of the prosecution to see the accused are punished for violation of provisions of the Control Order read with the Essential Commodities Act. The higher authorities shall take note of this to avoid recurrence in future.
8. With this above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. No costs.