ITC LIMITED Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vipin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Raghav Nayar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Vinod Kant, learned AGA and also learned standing counsel on behalf of the Central Excise Department and perused the record. Present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 26-7-2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 1790 of 1997 (Union of India through Shri R.N. Rustagi, Assistant Commissioner v. ITC Limited), alleging commission of offence under Section 9 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, by which the matter has been fixed for remaining evidence of the complainant u/s. 244 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that challenging the entire proceeding of complaint case No. 1790 of 1997, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing an application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. No. 41435 of 2013, which has been finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 6-12-2013 with the observation that the petitioner is permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through his counsel to press its application dated 5-11-2007 claiming discharge and in case, the said discharge application is not available on record, it will be open for the petitioner to file fresh discharge application within the stipulated period and the concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merit in accordance with law and in pursuance of the said order dated 6-12-2013 the petitioner filed a written submission in support of his earlier discharge application filed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., but the learned Magistrate has not decided the said discharge application so far and illegally passed the said order dated 26-7-2014 with the observation that before deciding the application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. one more opportunity should be given to the complainant to adduce his evidence and hence the matter has been fixed for remaining evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C.

(3.) On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the Central Excise Department supported the order passed by learned Magistrate, but could not dispute the observation of this Court given in the order dated 6-12-2013 passed in the aforesaid criminal misc. application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. No. 41435 of 2013.