Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (9) TMI 230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the petitioners effectively, these deserve to be divided into two groups - the first four forming one set and the remaining four, another, firstly the facts of the first set. 2. As a result of the four complaints filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi alleging the violation of the various conditions of the four import licences granted In favour of the petitioners, they were summoned by the Special Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, vide his Order dated January 7,1984 to face trial under Section 6 of the Imports Exports (Control) Act, 1947, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The details of these complaints which appear to have been prepared and signed on August 19,1978 but were filed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... process of Court. ........... In my view, the circumstances explained by the aforesaid Inspector of the C. B. I. in his affidavit as quoted above, show that the period from the year 1975 till date has been sufficiently and properly explained and no delay was caused in completing the investigation. Thus, there is no merit in the contentions of Mr. Sibal that the complaint has been filed belatedly and that it was abuse of the process of the Court." The petitioners again preferred special leave petitions before the Supreme Court of India against the aforesaid orders of this Court. The same were disposed of by their Lordships on January 31,1985, with the following observations :- Special leave petitions are allowed to be withdrawn since .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hers, AIR 1975 SC 1002 that there is no legal bar to the maintenance of successive applications invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to quash the proceedings pending in the subordinate Courts to secure the ends of justice, and that on facts the case in hand is one where the petitioners deserve to be granted that relief. In a nutshell, the suggestion was that the continuation of those proceedings before the trial Magistrate not only amounts to abuse of process of the Court but virtually amounts to persecution of the petitioners on account of the mental stress and strain they have undergone thus far. According to the learned Counsel, continuation of these proceedings would be gross injustice to his clients. He highlighted the delay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ets were filed against Mr. J.C. Verma, father of Mr. R.K. Verma, as most of the material evidence in the two sets of cases was common and different trials of these cases were likely to prejudice the case of the prosecution. He argued that in the light of this order, no progress in these cases could possibly be achieved. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned Counsel, I find that no case has been made out to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners at Patiata. 4. So far as the first submission of Mr. Sibal that successive applications under Section 482, Cr. P.C. can be maintained, is concerned, I find it to be an argument more of f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y for us to examine the true effect of these observations as they have no application because the present case is not one where the High Court was invited to revise or review an earlier order made by it in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction finally disposing of a criminal proceeding. Here, the situation is wholly different. The earlier application which was rejected by the High Court was an application under Section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceeding and the High Court rejected it on the ground that the evidence was yet to be led and it was not desirable to interfere with the proceeding at that stage. It is thus plain that in the instant case after the affirmance of the trial and the revisional Courts o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates