Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ashok Jain on 23 November, 2015
Bench: T.S. Thakur, V. Gopala Gowda
1
ITEM NO.201 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7170/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/12/2012
in CRLR No. 242/2011 passed by the High Court Of M.p At Gwalior)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ASHOK JAIN Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and permission to
file additional documents and office report)
(For Final Disposal)
Date : 23/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Shashi Juneja, Adv.
Mr. C. D. Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajesh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Shashi Sareen Date: 2015.11.30 10:12:49 IST Reason: 2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1552 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7170 of 2013) State of Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant Versus Ashok Jain ... Respondent ORDER Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of an order dated 5 th December, 2012, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior whereby Criminal Revision No.242 of 2011 filed by the respondent has been allowed and proceedings in ST No.12 of 2010 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, for offences punishable under Sections 467, 471 and 420, Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act quashed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length who have taken us through the order passed by the High Court and the material placed on 3 record. It is common ground that the respondent was one of the persons alleged to have committed offences punishable under the provisions mentioned earlier. The incident it appears involved seizure of a tanker containing 12000 litres of kerosene meant for distribution among eligible card holders at Bhind in the State of M.P. The prosecution case is that the respondent and other accused persons including Rajender Sharma, the Assistant Manager of the society, through whom the kerosene stock was to be distributed besides the owner and driver of the tanker in which the same was being transported illegally diverted the tanker for sale in black market. Completion of the investigation in the case led to the filing of a charge sheet before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, who heard learned counsel for the parties, examined the material on record and came to conclusion that there were grounds for framing of charges against the accused and accordingly framed the charges. The High Court has, however, by the order impugned before us quashed the proceedings qua the respondent. A reading of the order passed by the High 4 Court would show that the High Court has proceeded on certain assumptions for which there is at present no real basis. What was the nature of the duty which the respondent was supposed to discharge in his capacity as a dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation was a matter which had to be examined by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. Whether or not the evidence proved the connivance, conspiracy or abetment of the respondent with other accused persons named in the charge sheet was also a matter that ought to have been left for the Trial Court to determine after the prosecution led its evidence. Inasmuch the High Court held that the respondent had nothing to do with the incident it committed an error; especially when the Trial Court had come to the conclusion that there was material on record to justify framing of charges against him. All told the High Court should not have intervened to quash the criminal proceedings in the case as it did.
We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court. The Trial Court shall now proceed with the trial of the respondent in 5 accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but in any case within one year from the date a copy of this order is received by it. We make it clear that we shall not be understood to have expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case which aspect will be decided by the competent Court in accordance with law.
………………………………….…..…J. (T.S. THAKUR) ………………………………….…..…J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) New Delhi, November 23, 2015