1977 (2) TMI 129 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court can quash a process issued or a charge framed against an accused under sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Applicability of section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, to directors of a company.
3. Nature of orders framing charges or issuing processes - whether interlocutory or final.
4. Scope and limitations of the High Court's inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in light of section 397(2).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Process or Charge:
The primary legal question was whether the High Court has the authority to quash a process issued or a charge framed against an accused under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The court concluded that the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 are not limited by the prohibition in section 397(2) of the Code. The court emphasized that the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice, even if it involves quashing an interlocutory order such as the framing of a charge or issuing a process.

2. Applicability of Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:
The court addressed whether section 17(1) of the Act applies to directors of a company who are alleged to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business but against whom there is no allegation under section 17(2) that the offense was committed with their consent or connivance or due to their neglect. This issue was to be disposed of separately after hearing the parties involved.

3. Nature of Orders Framing Charges or Issuing Processes:
The court examined whether an order framing a charge or issuing a process is an interlocutory order or a final order. It was held that such orders are interlocutory in nature because they do not decide any matter in issue or terminate the litigation between the parties. The court cited several precedents, including Prem Chand Satramdas v. The State of Bihar and State of U.P. v. Colonel Sujan Singh, to support this view. The court clarified that an interlocutory order is procedural and does not determine the principal matter in dispute.

4. Scope and Limitations of Inherent Powers under Section 482:
The court discussed the scope of the High Court's inherent powers under section 482 of the Code. It was emphasized that these powers are extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, only when necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The court referred to several cases, including R. P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab and Dr. Raghbir Saran v. The State of Bihar, to illustrate the principles governing the exercise of inherent powers. The court concluded that section 397(2) does not bar the High Court from exercising its inherent powers under section 482 in suitable cases.

Conclusion:
The High Court held that an order framing a charge or issuing a process is an interlocutory order and does not determine the principal matter in dispute. The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code to quash such orders if they result in abuse of the process of the court or if it is necessary to secure the ends of justice. The court also clarified that the provisions of section 397(2) do not limit the inherent powers of the High Court.