HARSH KHURANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case is a classic example of how the petitioner has managed to ensure that the criminal proceedings initiated against him do not even take off much less achieve any final adjudicatory stage.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a whole-sale dealer of mild steel tubes carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Banarsi Dass & Co. In terms of a notification issued by respondent No. 1 / Union of India bearing No. GSR 374(E) dated 08.07.1978 called the Mild Steel Tubes (Excluding Seamless Tubes and Tubes According to A.P.I. Specifications) (Quality Control) Order, 1978 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Order' ) in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Act' ), the following provision was made :

(3.) That in terms of the power conferred under the said Order, an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner resulting in investigation and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed of which cognizance was taken. It is at that stage that the petitioner filed the present writ petition and in terms of the Order dated 17.09.1996, further proceedings before the trial court were stayed. The order-sheet thereafter is only a saga of adjournments and undisputedly the petitioner is a major contributory towards the same. There have been about 16 adjournments taken by the petitioner for one reason or the other. No doubt, apart from this, there have been some adjournments at the request of the respondents and on a couple of occasions, the Court could not take up the matter.