CHETAN R NAGDA Vs. N D PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar learned senior counsel for the Petitioners. According to him the trial Court has acted without jurisdiction in issuing process in the subject criminal action against the Petitioners in relation to offence under the provisions of the Standard of Weights and measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and Rules made thereunder.

(2.) As the ground urged before this Court can be effectively addressed in revision, it was suggested to Mr. Tulzapurkar that the petitioners may adopt the remedy of revision, in view of the recent judgment of this Court in the case of V. K. Jain and ors. Vs. Pratap V. Padode reported in 2005 (3) 778 Mh. L. J. 778. In the said decision, it has been observed that against the order of Magistrate issuing process, revision before the Sessions Court is alternative and efficacious remedy.

(3.) Mr. tulzapurkar however, relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of customs and Excise Cochin and others Vs. M/s. A. S. Bava reported in AIR 1968 SC 13, and Deccan merchants Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain and others reported in air 1969 SC 1320 to contend that remedy of revision application is neither alternative nor efficacious. He submits that the exposition in these two decisions have not been considered in the decision of this Court in Supra) V. K. Jain's case (Supra). This submission does not commend to me. In the former decision before the Apex Court, the scope of remedy of revision was considered in the context of the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In the later decisions in para 38, on which reliance is placed, the Apex Court was called upon to consider the scope of remedy under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1961. The said decisions will be of no avail while considering the scope of remedy of revision provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure against order issuing process. In the case of V. K. Jain (Supra) , this Court has adverted to series of decisions of the Apex Court which have consistently taken the view that against order of issuance of process the aggrieved accused can take recourse to remedy of revision. If remedy of revision is available against the order of Magistrate issuing process, the inherent power of this Court ought not to be resorted to. To get over this position, learned counsel would contend that even if the ground raised in this petition can be effectively answered by the Revisional Court, that does not preclude exercising writ jurisdiction of this court. To buttress this submission reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Harbanslal sahnia and another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 2120.