2011 (8) TMI 288 - HC - Customs

Criminal Revision - prosecution not published - The Court cannot fall in a trap of inaction on the part of investigation agency of prosecution. If the accused and the prosecution or investigating agency come in league to help accused, the Court cannot close its eyes and take a view that since the investigating agency was not acting properly, it would not issue process against the accused. That gives a leverage opportunity to the accused to mix up with the investigating agency and go scot free. The Court has to bring every matter to its logical end. If the investigating agency is not acting properly, an action should be ordered by the Court against the official of the investigating agency by superior officials but that would not give an excuse to the Court to let off the accused or let off any other person or refuse to issue process in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of complaint for non-prosecution by the trial court.
2. Failure to publish the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
3. Legality of the dismissal order by the trial court.
4. Judicial intervention in cases of inaction by investigating agencies.
5. Restoration of the complaint case to its original stage.

Issue 1: Dismissal of complaint for non-prosecution
The petitioner challenged the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution. The respondent had evaded court appearances despite NBWs and other coercive measures. The trial court dismissed the complaint citing failure to publish the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint hastily without giving another opportunity, especially considering the serious nature of the allegations.

Issue 2: Failure to publish the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
The trial court's basis for dismissal was the failure to publish the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The petitioner contended that the trial court's reasoning was flawed, emphasizing the need for proper legal procedures to be followed. Reference was made to a similar case where the court intervened to ensure the legal process was not circumvented due to inaction by investigating agencies or collusion between the accused and the prosecution.

Issue 3: Legality of the dismissal order
The High Court found fault with the trial court's decision to dismiss the complaint abruptly. It criticized the trial court for not allowing the legal process to unfold properly and for not providing the necessary opportunity for the case to proceed. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and directed the restoration of the complaint case to its original stage, emphasizing the importance of due process and fair treatment in legal proceedings.

Issue 4: Judicial intervention in cases of inaction by investigating agencies
The High Court highlighted the need for judicial intervention when investigating agencies fail to act appropriately or when there is collusion between the accused and the prosecution. It stressed that the court must ensure that legal procedures are followed diligently and that no party can manipulate the system to evade justice. The court's role is to oversee the proper administration of justice and to prevent any attempts to subvert the legal process.

Issue 5: Restoration of the complaint case
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, setting aside the trial court's order and directing the restoration of the complaint case to its original stage. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the trial court for further directions, with a warning that non-compliance could lead to legal consequences. The judgment emphasized the importance of upholding legal procedures and ensuring that justice is served fairly and impartially.