Back
1997 Supreme(MP) 469
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Tej Shankar, J.
Khagesh K. Goel
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
Cr. A. Nos. 326, 327 and 328 of 1996 (G)
Decided On: 04.08.1997
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. M.M. Quareshi, Advocate for State and Mr. N.K. Modi, Advocate for non applicant No. 3
An order framing charges against an accused is not an interlocutory order if it negatives the plea of the accused that no charge is made out and he is entitled to be discharged. Such an order is not hit by the provisions of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and a revision petition against such an order is maintainable.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - Framing of Charge - Interlocutory Order - Maintainability of Revision Petition - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 - Sections 3, 7, 19 - Interpretation and Application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of fertilizers, was prosecuted under the Essential Commodities Act and the Fertilizer Control Order for allegedly selling sub-standard fertilizer. The petitioner challenged the framing of charges against him, arguing that there was no evidence linking him to the sale of the sub-standard fertilizer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order framing charges against the petitioner was not an interlocutory order and that a revision petition against such an order was maintainable. The court further held that the petitioner's plea that he was entitled to be discharged as there was no material on record against him was not an interlocutory order and that a revision petition against such an order was maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether an order framing charges against an accused is an interlocutory order and whether a revision petition against such an order is maintainable? 2. Whether the petitioner's plea that he was entitled to be discharged as there was no material on record against him was an interlocutory order and whether a revision petition against such an order was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An order framing charges against an accused is not an interlocutory order if it negatives the plea of the accused that no charge is made out and he is entitled to be discharged. Such an order is not hit by the provisions of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and a revision petition against such an order is maintainable. 2. On the other hand, if the plea of the accused is that a minor charge is made out instead of the charge framed by the order of framing charge, such an order is certainly an interlocutory order and a revision petition against such an order is not maintainable and is hit by the provisions of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision: The court admitted the revision petitions and held that the order framing charges against the petitioner was not an interlocutory order and that a revision petition against such an order was maintainable.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that an order framing charges is not an interlocutory order if it negatives the plea that no charge is made out and the accused is entitled to be discharged; revision against such an order is maintainable. (!) (!) - If the plea is that a minor charge is made out instead of the framed charge, the framing order is an interlocutory order and revision against it is not maintainable under Section 397(2). (!) (!) (!) - The court analyzes multiple precedents to delineate when framing of charge is revisable versus not, and emphasizes that discharge or rejection of discharge preserves revisability, whereas framing a minor or deficient charge can render the order interlocutory. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
What is the maintainability of revision petitions against an order framing charges?
What is the classification of an order framing charges as interlocutory or non-interlocutory?
What factors determine whether framing of charge is revisable under Section 397(2) Cr. P.C.?
Tej Shankar, J.
1. These three Revision petitions arise out of three 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 r/w 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 proprietor of M/s Raghuveer Saran Arun Kumar, a dealer in fertilizers at Dinara (326 / 96) Satish Kumar Jain, non-petitioner no. 2 was proprietor of M/s Vivek Traders, a dealer of fertilizers at Pohri (327/96) Hukum Chand Ngaria, non-petitioner no. 2 was proprietor of M/s Jwala 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 proprietor 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 (U.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 (U.P.) M/s Shriniwas Fertilizers Ltd. had no sale depot in M.P. or at Shivpuri. There is no allegation in the F.I.R. 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 (U.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 show that the said firms had obtain 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 Schedule - II of the Fertilizer 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 contention 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 Cri. L.J. (SC) 2185 Amarnath and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others. In this case the words "i
