PMC MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments advanced by Mr. A. Ramesh, learned senior counsel arguing for Mr. R. Anand, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Mrs. S. Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) representing the first respondent police and by Mr. B.N. Raja Mohamed, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 24 are heard. The de facto complainant who is impleaded as twenty fifth respondent has left the matter without any representation, even though he has engaged a counsel. Based on the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners in the revision case and the contesting respondents, this Court doth pass the following order:

(2.) The said order of the learned Special Judge taking cognizance of the offences based on the report of the Investigating Officer dated 21.11.2012 as corrected by the endorsement dated 09.01.2013, is challenged in the present revision.

(3.) Mr. A .Ramesh, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the proceeding of the learned Special Judge contains an error on the face of the record in so far as the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences based on a report of the police, which cannot be legally termed a final report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. it is the further contention of the learned senior counsel that the irregularity in the proceeding is writ large as it will be obvious from the fact that a report of the police officer submitted to the Jurisdictional Court ought not to have been returned as it became the property of the Court and that the said irregularity culminated into an error on the face of the record, when the learned Special Judge took the case on file implying cognizance of the offences on the basis of a report, which contains a statement to the effect that investigation was not completed and it was still going on. The learned senior counsel has also pointed out the fact that the order taking cognizance of the offences by the learned Special Judge would reveal non-application of mind in so far as the order does not refer to the accused persons against whom the Special Court took cognizance of the offences and the offences for which cognizance was taken. In this regard, it is the further contention of the learned senior counsel that though the order taking cognizance of the offences cannot be termed as final order, nevertheless it cannot even be termed an interlocutory order as it has decided the right of the accused persons in one way or other as to whether they should be served with process in the criminal case to answer the charges incorporated in the report of the police and hence such an order can be appropriately termed as an intermediary order, which will take such order from the bar provided under sub-section 2 of Section 397 Cr.P.C.