YOGENDRA RAI Vs. N C B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sections 397, 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings pending before the learned ACMM, New Delhi.

(2.) I have heard the arguments advance by learned Counsel for the parties. Revision is admitted.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that by order dated 25.9.89 the petitioner had been discharged and such he could not be tried again once he had been discharged. I have carefully gone through this order. If we read this order as a whole, I am of the view that it does not amount to an order of discharge. It was mentioned in this order that the respondent NCB was not taking the case seriously and it had not filed various documents upon which it relied in support of its case against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned ACMM ordered that proceedings in this case may be adjorned sine die and the accused can be re-summoned after the documents are filed. Unfortunately in this order the learned ACMM chose to mention the word 'discharge' also and Mr. Khan wants to take full benefit of the use of this word 'discharge' in the order of the learned ACMM. It may also be noted that on very date, it was brought to the notice of the learned ACMM that the documents bad actually been filed in this case on 7.1.89 and copies thereof had already been supplied to the petitioner. In view of this submission having been made, learned ACMM took up the file on the same date. Therefore, it appears that the stay of the proceedings sine die in this case was actually based on some mis-appehension that the documents had not been filed which were actually found in the file later on. I am of the view that the order cannot be read as an order of discharge simply because the word 'discharge' has been used in this order.