1987 (9) TMI 230 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Review of judgment passed in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction
- Legal bar to the maintenance of successive applications under Section 482, Cr. P.C.
- Abuse of process of the Court and persecution of petitioners
- Delay in disposal of cases and continuation of proceedings
- Application of Economic Offenders (Non-applicability of Limitation) Act, 1974
- Jurisdiction to quash proceedings pending in subordinate Courts
- Granting relief under inherent jurisdiction of the Court
- Review, revision, or bypassing of earlier orders
- Unnecessary or unwarranted delay in launching proceedings
- Complaint filed belatedly and abuse of the process of the Court
- Failure of petitioners to put in appearance before the trial Court

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a review of earlier orders passed in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The Court clarifies that under no provision of the Criminal Procedure Code can it review its judgment terminating a criminal proceeding. The first set of petitions sought to quash summoning orders of the trial Magistrate and revisional orders, which were affirmed by the Court earlier. The second set of petitions raised similar issues, arguing for the quashing of proceedings independently. The Court examines the legal proposition of maintaining successive applications under Section 482, Cr. P.C., emphasizing that the review sought is more of form than substance.

2. The judgment addresses the allegations of abuse of process of the Court and persecution of petitioners. The petitioners claim mental stress and strain due to the continuation of proceedings. The respondent argues that no limitation applies to the proceedings under the Economic Offenders Act and highlights the delay caused by the petitioners in the case. The Court considers the delay in disposal of cases and the necessity of quashing proceedings pending against the petitioners in Patiala.

3. The Court evaluates the necessity of granting relief under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. It examines the arguments presented by both parties regarding delay, abuse of process, and the jurisdiction to quash proceedings in subordinate Courts. The Court concludes that no legal justification exists to review the earlier order and dismisses the petitions seeking relief.

4. The judgment discusses the application of the Economic Offenders Act, 1974, and the implications of the delay in launching proceedings. It emphasizes that the petitioners failed to put in an appearance before the trial Court, leading to a factual position where complaints of delay are unfounded. The Court finds no legal or factual basis for granting the relief sought by the petitioners and dismisses the petitions accordingly.