9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haved and the fact that he is squarely responsible for delaying the proceedings by reiterating the same contention twice over, we are of the definite opinion that respondent No. 2 should be made to suffer exemplary costs. We accordingly direct that he shall be called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 by way of costs and the said amount is to be deposited in the trial court within one month hence, failing which the trial court shall have a direction to recover the same as fine and pay the amount to the complainant. Compliance shall be reported to the registry of this court. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 February 17, 1986, dismissed the application and directed that the trial should proceed against both. That order was assailed by the respondents before the Bombay High Court by filing a criminal writ petition. The High Court, by its order dated July 10, 1986 which is impugned in this appeal, held: "On perusal of the averments, it is seen that at the time the learned trial judge issued/processed against the petitioners accu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is ground also the process issued against petitioner No. 2 is liable to be and is quashed and set aside". 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, first proviso, clause (a), of the Code of Criminal Procedure, what has been advanced as the most impressive ground for quashing the proceedings against respondent No. 2 could not at all have been accepted. The learned judge obviously has not cared to look into the procedural law applicable to the factual situation before him. The learned judge also lost sight of the fact that similar objections had once been raised and this High Court had refused to ente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplainant 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 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 respondent No. 2 in accordance with law, we would have been prepared to do so taking the facts of the case and the conduct of the respondent into consideration, but that would not be possible within the framework of the law of procedure. We, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
