PRAKASH SILK MILLS Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are filed by the original accused persons and the original complainant in Criminal Case No.879 of 1989 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Bardoli, calling into question the order dated 06.08.1994 of learned Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Revision Application No.97 of 1990.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bardoli Range, made the complaint in the said Criminal Case No.879 of 1989 against the four petitioners in Special Criminal Application No.1701 of 1994. Those petitioners were, by order dated 02.05.1990, discharged by learned J.M.F.C. on the ground that the complaint was not maintainable. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, preferred revision application which was allowed by the impugned order dated 06.08.1994 with a direction to proceed further with the criminal case. That order was based on the legal proposition that the stage for entertaining an application for discharge of accused persons was not reached, even as no evidence was recorded in the trial court. Learned Sessions Judge had not entered into merits of the plea sought to be agitated by the accused persons in their application Exh.20 before the trial court; and, therefore, could not be taken to have made binding observations on that aspect of the matter.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, it was conceded by learned counsel Mr.D.D. Vyas that, in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad V/s. Rooplal Jindal and others [(2004)7 SCC 338], trial court could not have reversed the order to issue process and, in the facts of the case, could not have discharged the accused persons without recording any evidence. There was no dispute about the fact that original application Exh.20 was submitted in the trial court even before hearing for framing of charge. Therefore, in short, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order of learned Sessions Judge for proceeding further with the trial in accordance with law.