NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 01.12.2000 passed by Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Special Trial No. 8 of 1983 whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application of the revisionist for quashing the proceedings initiated against him before the trial Court and discharging him of the charge punishable U/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that on 13.01.1983, an F.I.R. was registered by the then Sub -divisional Magistrate, Kotdwar in Police Station Kotdwar against Dalveer Singh and others and Truck No. UTS 870 containing jaggery, oil, Vanaspati, sugar Ferax (milk -powder) etc. was seized. Besides the above -mentioned seizure, driver of the vehicle Dalveer Singh was detained in the Police Station, Kotdwar. After registration of the case, accused Naresh Kumar surrendered before the Court concerned and got him and his driver Dalveer Singh released on bail. After completion of the investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted against the accused persons in the Court of Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal and a case bearing Special Criminal Case No. 8 of 1983 is pending in the concerned Court. After the death of accused Dalveer Singh, the case against him stood abated. The accused Naresh Kumar made a prayer before the learned trial Court that since charge -sheet was submitted on 09.12.1983 against him i.e. after six months of the lodging of the first Information report, therefore, the court of the special judge/sessions judge, Pauri Garhwal, was not competent to take cognizance of the case. He also pleaded that as per the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, his trial ought to have been conducted summarily and as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial against him ought to have been conducted as 'summons case' and not as 'warrant case'.

(2.) THE learned trial Court held that since the accused was not in police custody, therefore, provisions of Section 167 (5) of the Cr. P.C. do not apply with regard to the investigation against him. With regard to his trial to be conducted summarily, the learned trial Court held that though the trial ought to have been conducted summarily, charge against him had already been framed by his predecessor vide order dated 06.08.1984 and since that order was not challenged by the accused, now, that cannot be challenged. He also held that since as per the provisions of Section 259 Cr. P.C., 'summons case' can be converted into 'warrant case'. Thus, the learned trial Court held that there was no illegality in trying the present case as a 'warrant case'.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the revisionist has filed the present revision against the order of the Court below.