KINJI SAITO Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2020 passed by CJM, Ujjain, order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the CJM and the order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Revision No.61/20.

(2.) Inspector, Weights and Measures, Ujjain purchased two spark plugs from Surya Automobiles and Car Decor, Nagori Plaza, Ujjain. In the packet, the name of Maruti Udyog Ltd. was printed due to which he presumed that Maruti Udyog Ltd. is the manufacturer of those plugs. After opening the pack the word 'Mico' was found embossed on the plug. After conducting the necessary investigation he filed a complaint under Rule 6 (1)9a) and 9(1)(a) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules which is punishable under section 39, 63 and 74 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. Based on the aforesaid complaint, learned CJM took cognizance and issued notices to the petitioners and respondents No.2 to 12on 26.04.2004. Some of the accused moved a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashment of the aforesaid complaint which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 02.03.2005 passed in MCRC no.3651/2004. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Apex Court by way of SLP, however, the same was also dismissed. Vide order dated 15.06.2015 learned CJM read over the particular offence to the petitioners and other accused and they abjured their guilt and pleaded for trial. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined 4 witnesses and closed the evidence on 19.02.2015. Thereafter, the trial was fixed for examination of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) Petitioners and others filed an application seeking exemption from personal appearance for the purpose of examination under section 313 Cr.P.C, however, same was dismissed by the CJM vide order dated 11.05.2015. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order revision petition was filed before the Sessions Court which was partly allowed vide order dated 24.07.2015. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners and 5 others filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashment of proceedings of the entire criminal case No.2054/2004 i.e. MCRC No.7134/2015. In the said MCRC learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the petitioners would have to appear in person for recording their statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C but before that the ld. CJM has failed to appreciate that there is no specific averment as to the role of the petitioners in the complaint and also there is any whisper of any act done by the petitioners in the complaint or the entire prosecution evidence. In absence of any incriminating materials against them, there is no need for examination of the petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C. Vide judgment dated 02.07.2019 the coordinate Bench of this Court has negatived the aforesaid contention and dismissed the petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the order dated 02.07.2019 the petitioners again approached the Apex Court by way of SLP (Cri.) No.11814/2019 and vide order dated 31.01.2020 the Apex Court has disposed of the SLP by observing that the petitioners are exempted from personal appearance before the trial Court but in case they want to depose then they will have to remain present as per the time schedule. It is further observed that if they so want to enter in the witness box the trial Court will endeavour to record the evidence on a day to day basis subject to all reasonable exigencies and conclude the trial within a maximum period of 3 months because the case is pending from the year 2004.