9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1988 (3) TMI 165 - SC - Indian LawsProsecution of Managing Director Respondent No. 2 - Held that - Once the order of the High Court is vacated the order of the learned Magistrate would revive and the prosecution as directed by the learned Magistrate has now to continue. The petition of the complainant shows that the offence was committed between 1967 and 1969 which is some 20 years back. While we have no sympathy for the Respondent No. 2 and we are clearly of the opinion that he has no equity in his favour and the delay after the complaint had been filed has been mostly on account of his mala fide move, we do not think it would be in the interest of justice to allow a prosecution to start 20 years after the offence has been committed. If we could convict the Respondent No. 2 in accordance with law, we would have been prepared to do so taking the facts of the case and conduct of the respondent into consideration but that would not be possible within the framework of the law of procedure. We, therefore, do not propose to allow the learned Magistrate to proceed with the trial of the case at this belated stage. We accordingly direct the case to be closed against Respondent No. 2 without further delay
Issues:
1. Appeal against dismissal of application to discharge Managing Director in a criminal case. 2. Quashing of process issued against Managing Director. 3. Criticism of the Judge's decision. 4. Decision to close the case against the Managing Director. 5. Imposition of exemplary costs on the Managing Director. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports against the dismissal of an application to discharge the Managing Director in a criminal case under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The case was transferred to the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, where the complaint was filed against the Managing Director and the company. The High Court dismissed the appeal, leading to the matter being brought before the Supreme Court. The High Court's order was challenged, and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, vacating the High Court's order. 2. The High Court had quashed the process issued against the Managing Director on the grounds that there were no allegations of criminal conduct against him and that the prosecution intended to charge him as the principal offender without evidence of aiding or abetting. The Supreme Court found these grounds untenable, emphasizing that a company acts through someone, and in this case, the Managing Director was alleged to have committed the offense on behalf of the company. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's order, allowing the prosecution to proceed against both the company and the Managing Director. 3. The Supreme Court criticized the Judge's decision, stating that the Judge's objections were unfounded and should not have been accepted. The Judge's failure to consider the procedural law and previous decisions led to the erroneous quashing of the process against the Managing Director. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of scrutinizing the complainant's petition properly to avoid such errors. 4. Despite allowing the prosecution to continue against both the company and the Managing Director, the Supreme Court decided to close the case against the Managing Director due to the significant delay in proceedings. The offense was committed 20 years prior, and the Supreme Court deemed it unjust to allow the prosecution to proceed after such a long period. The Managing Director was relieved from further trial proceedings. 5. In addition to closing the case against the Managing Director, the Supreme Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000 on him. The costs were deemed necessary due to the Managing Director's behavior causing delays in the proceedings and reiterating the same contentions multiple times. The Supreme Court directed the Managing Director to pay the costs within one month, with non-compliance leading to recovery as a fine by the trial court. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the Supreme Court's decision in the case.
|
