Khagesh Kumar Goel vs State of M. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1997 Supreme(MP) 475

1997 (2) JLJ 276
Tej Shankar, J.
Khagesh Kumar Goel v. State of M.P. and others Cr. Revision No. 326 of 1996; against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, passed in Sessions Trial No.13 of 1995; Decided on 4.8.1997.

Advocates:
Sanjay Gupta for applicant; M.M. Qureshi, Govt. Advocate for State; N.K. Modi for non-applicant No.3.

Headnote:(1) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 -- Ss. 3 r/w 7 -- Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 -- Cl. 19 and Sch. JJ – provision for taking sample under Sch. JJ not observed -- ownership of bags not established -- no charge can be framed. [Para 3]
       (2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 397 (2) and 204 -- summoning accused to face a criminal trialn is not an ‘interlocutory order‘ -- revision is not barred as provided under S. 397 (2). 1977 CrLJ (SC) 2185 followed. [Para 6]
       (3) Criminal P.C.,1973 -- Ss. 482 and 397 (2) -- revision barred under S.397 (2) -- inherent powers under S. 482 cannot be invoked. 1977 CrLJ (SC) 2185 followed. [Para 7]
       (4) Words and Phrases -- words -- "interlocutory order" -- import of -- though not conclusive of the main dispute -- may be conclusive as to subordinate matter with which it deals. 1977 CrLJ (SC) 2185, AIR 1978 SC 47 and AIR 1949 FC 1 followed. [Para 7]
       (5) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 397 (2) -- interlocutory order envisaged under -- order determining the case -- is not an interlocutory order.. AIR 1949 FC ] followed. [Para 7]
       (6) Words and Phrases -- words "interlocutory order" -- what is not‘ ‘final order" cannot always be treated as "interlocutory order" -- it is neither warranted nor justified. AIR 1978 SC 47 followed. [Para 7]
       (7) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 397 (2) -- expression "interlocutory order" used under n is not invariably converse of the words‘ ‘final order". AIR 1978 SC 47 followed. [Para 7]
       (8) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 397 (2) -- order passed during pendency of proceedings -- may neither be final nor interlocutory -- such orders may be construed to be "interntediate orders" -- no bar under applies. AIR 1978 SC 47 followed. [Para 7]
       (9) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 204 and 397 (2) -- accused summoned for facing trial -- order is "intermediate order" and not an interlocutory order -bar under S. 397 (2) to entertain revision not attracted. AIR 1978 SC 47 followed. 1997 (2) Crimes 27 relied on. [Paras 7 & 8]
       (10) Words and Phrases -- words‘ ‘interlocutory order" -- merely decides some point or matter essential to the progress of suit. AIR 1980 SC 962 followed.
       (11) Words and Phrases -- words "intermediate order" -- is one which is made between commencement of an action and the entry of the judgment. AIR 1980 SC 962 followed. [Para 8]
       (12) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 227 and 397 (2) -- framing of charge n is not an interlocutory order -- hence revisable. 1982 CrLJ 1025, 1981 CrLJ 454 and 1989 MPLJ 343 relied on.. [Para 8]
       (13) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 397 (2), 227 and 228 -- charge quashed or framed -- order is revisable -- charge altered and trial to be commenced -- order is not revisable being interlocutory.
       In order to take-out particular order from the clutches of the interlocutory order, it must be shown that the order is such by which plea of the accused on a particular point if accepted will conclude a particular proceeding. Unless it is shown that the plea if accepted will finally conclude the proceedings, the order passed during the pendency of the case can be taken to be interlocutory order. JT 1990 (2) SC 328 followed.
       [Paras 9, 12 & 13]
       ¼1½ vko‘;d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 3 lgifBr /kkjk 7 && moZjd fu;a=d vkns‘k] 1985 && [kaM 19 rFkk vuqlwph 2 && uewuk ysus ds fy, vuqlwph 2 djs v/khu miac/k dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k && cksjksa dk LokfeRo ugha && vkjksi fojfpr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 3À
       ¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397 ¼2½ rFkk 204 && nkafMd fopkj.k dk lkeuk djus ds fy, vfHk;qDr leu fd;k tkuk && varoZrhZ vkns‘k ugha gS && iqujh{k.k] /kkjk 397¼2½ ds v/khu ;Fkkmicaf/kr] oftZr ugha gSA 1977 lhvkj ,y ts ¼,l lh½ 2185 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 2À
       ¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 rFkk 397 ¼2½ && iqujh{k.k] /kkjk 397¼2½ ds v/khu] oftZr && /kkjk 482 ds v/khu varfuZfgr ‘kfDr;ksa dk vkJ; ugha fy;k tk ldrkA 1977 lhvkj ,y ts ¼,l lh½ 2185 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 2À
       ¼4½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn varZorhZ vkns‘k && vFkZ && ;|fi eq[; fookn ds fy, fu.kkZ;d ugha && mlesa fopkj/khu xkS.k fo"k; dk fu.kkZ;d gks ldrkA 1977 lhvkj ,y ts ¼,l lh½ 2185] , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 47 rFkk , vkb vkj 1949 ,Q lh 1 vuqlfjrA

       ¼5½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397 ¼2½ && /kkjk esa ifjdfYir varoZrhZ vkns‘k && vkns‘k }kjk ekeys dk vo/kkj.k && varorhZ vkns‘k ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1949 ,Q lh 1 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 7À
       ¼6½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn varZorhZ vkns‘k && tks vafre vkns‘k ugha] og lnSo varZorhZ vkns‘k ugha ekuk tk ldrk && ;g u okaNuh; gS] u U;k;ksfpr gh gSA , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 47 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 7À
       ¼7½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397 ¼2½ && iz;qDr vfHkO;fDr varZorhZ vkns‘k && fujiokn :i ls ‘‘kCn avafre vkns‘k dk foi;kZ; ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 47 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 7À
       ¼8½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397 ¼2½ && dk;Zokgh ds yacu ds nkSjku ikfjr vkns‘k && vafre Hkh ugha gks ldrk vkSj varZorhZ Hkh ugha gks ldrk && ,sls vkns‘kksa dk vFkkZUo;u e/;orhZ ds :i esa fd;k tk ldrk gS && /kkjk ds v/khu otZu ykxw ugha gksrkA , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 47 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 7À
       ¼9½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 204 rFkk 397 ¼2½ && vfHk;qDr dks fopkj.k dk lkeuk djus ds fy, leu fd;k tkuk && vkns‘k e/;orhZ vkns‘k gS] varorhZ vkns‘k ugha && /kkjk 397 ¼2½ ds v/khu iqujh{k.k xzg.kj djus dk otZu vkdf"kZr ughaA , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 47 vuqlfjrA 1997¼2½ ØkbEl 27 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 7 rFkk 8À
       ¼10½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn varZorhZ vkns‘k && okn dh izxfr ds fy, ek= dksbZ fcanq vFkok fo"k; dk fofu‘p;u gksrk gSA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 962 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 8À
       ¼11½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn e/;orhZ vkns‘k** && dkjZokbZ ds izkjaHk vkSj fu.kZ; dh izfof"V fd, tkus ds chp fd;k x;k vkns‘k gSA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 960 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 8À
       ¼12½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 227 rFkk 397 ¼2½ && vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tkuk && varoZrhZ vkns‘k ugha gS && vr% iqujh{k.kh; gSA 1982 lh vkj ,y ts 1025] 1981 lh vkj ,y ts 454 rFkk 1989 ,y ih ,y ts 343 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 8À
       ¼13½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397 ¼2½] 227 rFkk 228 && vkjksi vfHk[kafMr vFkok fojfpr && vkns‘k iqujh{k.kh; gS && vkjksi ifjofrZr vkSj fopkj.k izkajHk gksus dks && vkns‘k] varorhZ gksus ds dkj.k iqujh{k.kh; ugha gSA
       fdlh fof‘k"V vkns‘k dks varoZrhZ vkns‘k ds f‘kdats ls ckgj fudkyus ds fy, ;g vo‘; nf‘kZr djuk gksxk fd og vkns‘k ,slk gS ftlds fdlh fof‘k"V fcanq ij vfHk;qDr dk vfHkopu ;fn Loh—r fd;k tkrk gS] dksbZ fof‘k"V dk;Zokgh fu.khZr gks tk,xhA tc rd ;g nf‘kZr ugha fd;k tkrk gS fd vfHkopu Lohdkj dj fy, tkus dh n‘kk es dk;Zokgh vafre :i ls lekIr gks tk,xh] ekeyk yafcr jgus ds nkSjku ikfjr vkns‘k varoZrhZ gksuk ekuk tk ldrk gSA ts Vh 1990 ¼2½ ,l lh 328 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 9] 12 rFkk 13À

ORDER

1. These three revision petitions arise out-of different cases against the present petitioner. As they raise common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts on the basis of which the petitioner has been prosecuted under section 3 rlw section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and violation of section 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, in the aforesaid three different cases are also more or less similar.

3. It is alleged that Raghuveer Saran Gupta non-petitioner No.2 was proprieter of M/s. Raghuveer Saran Amn Kumar, a dealer in fertilizers at Dinara (326/96). Satish Kumar Jain, non-petitioner No. 2•was proprieter of M/s. Vivek Traders, a dealer of fertilizers at Pohri (327/96). Hukum Chand Nagaria, non-petitioner No.2 was proprieter of M/s. J wala Prasad Hukum Chand, a dealer in fertilizers at Sirsaud (328/96). There was a stock of Vishwas Brand Single Super Phosphate (In short SSP) with the said proprieters and sample was taken on different dates in the aforesaid three cases and it was sent to the fertilizer analyst for examination. A report dated 4.9.95 was received and according to the report sample was found sub-standard to the extent mentioned in the report. In all the three cases it was mentioned in the report that the fertilizer was purchased from the firms mentioned therein. The allegation made against the petitioner was that he was the manufacturer of Vishwas Brand Single Super Phosphate (SSP) which was a company known as Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. Jhansi (O.P.). The petitioner claimed that there was, however, no mention of the procedure adopted by the complainant in taking sample. There was no allegation about the business relationship between the said firms and the petitioner. The said firms are not agent of the petitioner. The shops from which the sample was received did not belong to Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. Jhansi (O.P.) M/s. Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. had no sale depot in M.P. or at Shivpuri. There is no allegation in the FIR that the sample was taken from the bags which were owned by M/s. Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. even if it was found that the fertilizer in question was the same which was manufactured by M/s. Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. Jhansi (O.P.). There was no allegation to support the allegation that sample was taken from the bags which were in the ownership of the M/s. Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. There is also nothing to how that. the said firms had obtained any warranty from M/s. Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. or that the goods were kept intact in the same condition in which they were purchased. Procedure for taking sample had been laid down in Schedule-II of the Frtilizer Control Order, 1985 and the provisions are mandatory. Nothing has been shown that the procedure was actually followed.

Unless it is specifically alleged that the petitioner was the owner he could not be proceeded with under the Essential Commodities Act. There could not be a joint trial under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act of the alleged manufacturer or Vendor or Distributor. They can only be tried if allegations are made that they have connecting links between them so as to constitute the same transaction. This link is absolutely missing in the case. The petitioner before the lower Court contested this point at the time of framing the charge. But the lower Court repelled the contentions and framed the charge and hence the present petitions.

4. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that revision petition against the framing of charge is not maintainable as it is an interlocutory order;

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length that the revision petition lies. In support of his contentions he placed reliance upon certain authorities.

6. The earliest authority upon which reliance has been placed is 1977 CrLJ (SC) 2185 Amarnath and others v. State of Haryana and others. In this case the words "interlocutory order"

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(MP) 475

1997 (2) JLJ 276Tej Shankar, J.Khagesh Kumar Goel v. State of M.P. and others Cr. Revision No. 326 of 1996; against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, passed in Sessions Trial No.13 of 1995; Decided on 4.8.1997.

Cases Referred (4)

1997 (2) JLJ 276
Tej Shankar, J.
Khagesh Kumar Goel v. State of M.P. and others Cr. Revision No. 326 of 1996; against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, passed in Sessions Trial No.13 of 1995; Decided on 4.8.1997.