CHAMPA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES Vs. SURAT SINGH DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORT AND EXPORTS AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Jitendra H. Gandhi accused in Criminal Case No. 168 of 1991 on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. By this petition he wants this Court to quash the said Criminal Case against him by contending that the said Criminal Case ought to be quashed by discharging him in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of "Common Cause" A Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India and Ors., 1996 (4) Supreme To-Day 37.

(2.) The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Ahmedabad has filed a complaint against the present petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad alleging that the present petitioners have committed an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The said complaint was filed on 20-1-1989. It is an admitted fact that in the said case the recording of evidence before charge has taken only on 25-9-1996. It is the claim of the respondent that the recording of the evidence before charge was delayed on account of the petitioners seeking adjournment and the witnesses had to go back on 3 ocassions prior to that date. Though the said claim is disputed by the learned advocate for the petitioners, it is not necessary for me to go into controvercy for the purpose of deciding the petition before me. As the facts stands today, the actual recording of evidence in this case before charge has taken on 25-9-1996. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Common Cause" A Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India & Ors., 1996 (4) Supreme Today has taken place on 1-5- 1996. In the said case, the Supreme Court has given certain directions with a view to reduce the pendancy of the criminal cases in Trial Courts. The said directions and judgment are delivered by the Supreme Court and in view of the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the said directions are binding not only against all the Trial Courts, but also against this court. In paras 1 and 2 of the said judgment, various directions are given by the Appex Court for disposal of the cases on the files of the Trial Courts. Thereafter, in para 4 of the said judgment, it has been directed as under:

(3.) If the directions given by the Apex Court in para No. 4 which are quoted by me above are read carefully, then it would be quite clear that the Appex Court wants to exclude the applications of the directions given in paras No. 1 and 2 of the said judgment to those offences which are the offences against the society at large. The offences which are offences against the public good, public tranquillity and public health are to be exempted from the applications of the directions given in paras No. 1 and 2 of the said judgment. If this intention of Their Lordship of Appex Court is taken into consideration by considering para No. 4 of the said judgment, then there will be no difficulty in holding that the offence in question is an economic offence as contemplated by the Apex Court. It must be remembered that the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 is an act to prohibit or control imports and exports. It is an act enacted to strengthen the economy of the country. The offences contemplated by the said act of 1947 are the offences against the society at large. It is the offence against the economy of the country: His Lordship K. T. Desai, J of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Pioneer Scrap Traders and Exporters v. Eapen and another, A.I.R. 1963 Bombay, 50 (V. 50 C 13) has considered the object of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 by making the following observations :