9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 - Appeal Criminal 175 of 1988 - - - Dated:- 22-3-1988 - Rangana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter was brought to this Court by filing an application for special leave on 12-12-1983, this Court dismissed the leave application. The case set down for trial after charges were framed. An application was made to the trial court at this stage to discharge the Managing Director, Respondent No. 2 in exercise of inherent powers by contending that the company was prepared to admit its guilt and may be appropriately penalised and the Managing Director against whom there was no allegation of any criminal conduct should be discharged. The learned Magistrate by a reasoned order dated 17-th February, 1986, dismissed the application and directed that the trial should proceed against both. That order was assailed by the respondents before the Bom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s done principally by the licensee (Company in this case) and/or by the abetter to the offence. There are no allegations in the complaint that the petitioner No. 2 either aided or abetted in the contravention of licence conditions by the petitioner No. 1-Company. As such on this ground also the process issued against petitioner No. 2 is liable to be and is quashed and set aside. 3. The criticism , advanced by the learned Judge against the trying Magistrate is wholly untenable and is perhaps applicable to the learned Judge. If reference had been made to Section 200 proviso (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, what has been advanced as the most impressive ground for quashing the proceedings against the Respondent No. 2 could not at all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reversed. We allow the appeal and vacate the order of the High Court. 4. 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 at page 21 of the paper-book 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
