SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(P&H) 867

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
B. Rai, J.
V.K. Garg - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Crl. M. No. 12489 of 1998 in Crl. M. No. 9285-M of 1998.
Decided On : 16 July, 1998

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Dinesh Goyal, Advocate.

A trial court is bound to comply with the stay orders passed by the High Court and cannot continue with the proceedings or take any action that would violate the stay order.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - FERTILIZER (CONTROL) ORDER, 1985 - SECTION 19(1)(a) - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTION 7(1)(a) - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS GRANTED BY HIGH COURT - TRIAL COURT CONTINUING WITH PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUING NON-BAILABLE WARRANTS - VIOLATION OF HIGH COURT ORDER - EXPLANATION FROM TRIAL JUDGE DIRECTED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, V.K. Garg, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of a notice/summoning order issued by the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, in a case registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985. The High Court stayed further proceedings in the case till further orders. Despite the stay order, the trial court continued with the proceedings and issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the trial court had violated its order dated 28.4.1998 by continuing with the proceedings and issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. The court also observed that the trial judge had intentionally passed these orders with a view to harass the accused.

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in continuing with the proceedings and issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner despite the stay order passed by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the trial court had violated its order dated 28.4.1998 by continuing with the proceedings and issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. The court also observed that the trial judge had intentionally passed these orders with a view to harass the accused.

Final Decision: The High Court directed the trial judge to submit an explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

JUDGMENT

B. Rai, J. - This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by one V.K. Garg with a prayer to stay the operation of the order dated 15.5.1998 issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Chief Agricultural Officer, Hoshiarpur filed a complaint under Section 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act punishable under section 7(1)(a) of the said Act. On the said complaint, case F.I.R. No. 65 dated 22.6.1994 was registered at Police Station Tanda District Hoshiarpur. In that case, Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, issued a notice to Vijay Kumar Garg requiring him to appear in the Court on 31.3.1998 at 10 a.m. which led Vijay Kumar Garg to file a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of notice/summoning order Annexure P2 in the case F.I.R. No. 65 dated 22.6.1994 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with clause 19(1)(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

3. When the case came up for hearing on 28.4.1998, the following order was passed :-

Notice for 28.5.1998. Further proceedings are stayed till further orders .............".

Vide order dated 28.5.1998 record of the lower Court was requisitioned.

4. Equipped with the order dated 28.4.1998 Vijay Kumar Garg filed an application before the trial Court and the learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, passed the order dated 6.5.1998, which reads as under :

"Shri V.K. Garg has filed this application through his counsel to the effect that further proceedings have been stayed till further orders. The Honble High Court has not passed any order staying arrest of the petitioner. In pursuance of the order issued by this Court on 25.4.98 no proceedings now can be taken by me as per directions of the Honble High Court as the proceedings of the challan case have been stayed.

I would like to observe here that I would not be taking any proceedings from today onwards.

To come up on 15.5.98, the date already fixed."

On 15.5.1998, the learned Special Judge passed the following order :

"The Honble High Court has stayed further proceedings till further orders, vide order dated 28.4.1998.

There is no necessity to write more but I have pointed out to the learned counsel for V.K. Garg accused that non-bailable warrants were issued against this accused on 15.5.1998. The warrants have neither been received either executed or otherwise. I have advised the learned counsel for V.K. Garg also to get the order stayed with regard to the issuance of non bailable warrants as per order dated 25.4.98. I would like to mention here that no mention has been made by the Honble High Court with regard to the non bailable warrants issued against the accused. To come up for awaiting further orders from Honble the High Court on 28.8.1998."

In these circumstances, V.K. Garg has approached this Court with a prayer to stay the operation of the order dated 25.4.1998 whereby bail bonds and surety bonds executed by V.K. Garg were cancelled and non bailable warrants were issued against him for 15.5.1998 and notice to his surety was also ordered to be issued.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that it was brought to the notice of the learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur that a case for quashing of proceedings is pending before the Honble High Court but the learned Special Judge vide order dated 25.4.1998 issued non bailable warrants against the petitioner and fixed the case for 15.5.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner along with the certified copy of the order dated 28.4.1998 filed an application before the learned Special Judge with a prayer to withdraw the said non bailable warrants issued against him and it also brought to his notice that because the warrants are also part of the proceedings which have already been stayed by the Honble High Court, the learned Special Judge illegally and wro


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top