Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.S.Aggarwal, J.
State
Versus
P.C.Aggarwal
Criminal Revision No. 89 of 1991,
Decided On : MAY 27, 1997
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 203, 204 - IMPORT AND EXPORT (CONTROL) ACT, 1947 - Section 5 - PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B - Revision petition against order summoning accused - Maintainability - Territorial jurisdiction - Sufficient ground for proceeding - Delay in trial - Speedy trial - Article 21 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed against the respondent and others for offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471 and 120-B, IPC besides Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947. The Judicial Magistrate summoned the respondent and other accused. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred revision petitions. The Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, CBI held that there was nothing in the complaint that P.C. Aggarwal had any conspiracy with any of the accused. As per the complaint made no offence can be drawn against them and, therefore, the order summoning the respondents P.C. Aggarwal and Parkash Chand was set aside. Aggrieved by the same the present revision petitions have been filed.
Finding of the Court:
1. The revision petitions were not maintainable as the Additional Sessions Judge did not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the revision petitions. However, the order cannot be termed to be illegal as the cases had been transferred on administrative ground and, therefore, the revision petitions have rightly been sent from the Court at Jalandhar to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Patiala. 2. The respondents could not approach the Court of Session by filing the revision petitions. However, in the peculiar facts, this contention of the learned counsel (for CBI) necessarily must fail. 3. The order summoning the respondents was an interlocutory order and the Court of Session could not entertain the revision petitions. However, keeping in view the aforesaid, it must be held that revision petitions against the order summoning the respondents was not competent. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in presuming the facts in favour of the respondents. Consequently, the judgments of the learned Additional Sessions Judge are set aside, restoring that of the learned Judicial Magistrate. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate will try and expedite the trial of the case. He will preferably complete the trial within one year from the date of receipt of the order.
Issues: 1. Whether the revision petitions were maintainable? 2. Whether the respondents could approach the Court of Session by filing the revision petitions? 3. Whether the order summoning the respondents was an interlocutory order? 4. Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in presuming the facts in favour of the respondents?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The revision petitions were not maintainable as the Additional Sessions Judge did not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the revision petitions. However, the order cannot be termed to be illegal as the cases had been transferred on administrative ground and, therefore, the revision petitions have rightly been sent from the Court at Jalandhar to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Patiala. 2. The respondents could not approach the Court of Session by filing the revision petitions. However, in the peculiar facts, this contention of the learned counsel (for CBI) necessarily must fail. 3. The order summoning the respondents was an interlocutory order and the Court of Session could not entertain the revision petitions. However, keeping in view the aforesaid, it must be held that revision petitions against the order summoning the respondents was not competent. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in presuming the facts in favour of the respondents. Consequently, the judgments of the learned Additional Sessions Judge are set aside, restoring that of the learned Judicial Magistrate.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were dismissed. The judgments of the learned Additional Sessions Judge were set aside, restoring that of the learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Judicial Magistrate was directed to try and expedite the trial of the case and preferably complete the trial within one year from the date of receipt of the order.
1. By this common judgment both the Criminal Revisions Nos. 89 and 90 of 1991 can conveniently be dispose of together.
2. The relevant facts are that Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had filed a criminal complaint against the respondent and others for offences punishable under Ss. 420/468/471 and 120-B, IPC besides S. 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947. Since the facts are not much in controversy in both the petitioners, they can well be delineated.
3. M/s. Impex Services is stated to be a partnership concern. P. N. Piplani, M. M. Piplani, C. L. Piplani and Smt. Jaya Piplani were the partners. Ravinder Kumar was the peon of shri P. C. Aggarwal. P.N. Piplani gave a general power of attorney in the name of Ravi Kumar. In fact the said Ravinder Kumar had signed as Ravi Kumar on the direction of P.C. Aggarwal. An application was sent to the Secretary, Apparel Export Promotion Council, Sahyog Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi for membership of the organisation under the signatures of Ravi Kumar. Parkash Chand was the proposer of the application. It was seconded by Mahavir Parshad. Both Parkash Chand and Mahavir Parshad were the employees of P.C. Aggarwal, Membership was issued in favour of M/s. Impex Services under the signatures of Shri K. C. Mathur. Thereafter an application dated 25-12-1983 was addressed to the office of Deputy Chief of Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar under the signatures of Ravi Kumar. It was accompanied by an export order of M/s. Jyo Tax Inc Canada with respect to Hosiery garments worth 1,90,000 pieces, the case was considered in the Advance Licence Section for import of polyster filamentyarn. It was decided that 1,1,90,000 pieces of 100% polyster Hosiery Garments shall be exported subject to the condition that export obligation was 6 months from the date of clearance of first installment. One Ram Parshad accused gave the undertaking that he will manufacture the said pieces of Polyster Hosiery garments. Thereupon Ravi Kumar accused informed that the office had been shifted to Rani Ka Bagh Shopping Complex, Amritsar. The Advance Import licence along with the duty exemption entitlement certificate was issued to the Impex Services. It was stipulated that goods shall be exported within six months from the date of clearance of first consignment. A letter was addressed to the office of Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports by Ravi Kumar for enhancing CIF value in their advance licence due to devaluation of the rupee. An amended licence was issued. It is alleged that the licence was handed over to Shri P. C. Aggarwal and SSI certificate had been issued which was also given to Shri P. C. Aggarwal.
4. On receipt of the licence Shri P. N. Piplani appointed Ram Parshad of M/s. Excel Corporation for importing polyster yarn. Ram Parshad was residing at the residence of P.C. Aggarwal. Huge amounts were deposited and withdrawn from the accounts in the name of Ram Parshad. The details of such accounts have been given in the complaint which are not relevant to be mentioned for disposal of the present revision petitions. By doing all this, in criminal conspiracy with each other, the accused-persons is alleged to have caused the loss of Rs. 1,99,15,818/- to the Government. As per conditions of the licence the finishing goods had to be exported within six months from the date of the clearance of the first installment. M/s. Jyo Inc is alleged to be a fictitious firm. The export order is also stated to be bogus.
5. On these broad facts, the complaint was filed. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate summoned the respondent and other accused for the offences mentioned above on 28-2-1989.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred the revision petitions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Patiala heard the revision petitions and vide separate orders discharged Parkash Chand as well as P.C. Aggarwal. The Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, CBI held
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
