SHRILAL MEHTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners by filing the instant application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution while challenging the order dated 31.7.2006 passed by the learned Court of Revision in Criminal Revision No. 58 of 2006 sought for quashing and/or dropping the proceeding against the present petitioners in respect of case No. C/1455 of 1979 under section 420 of Companies Act. The said case is pending before the learned 3rd Court of Magistrate, Calcutta. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the present petitioners are above 80 years of age. It is emphatically mentioned that the alleged default in the matter of payment was taken care of and payment was subsequently made by the present petitioners.

(2.) It appears that in response to the complaint filed on behalf of the present opposite party No. 2, a case was started as far back as in 1979 against the present petitioners and others under section 420 of the Companies Act. An application was filed before the learned Trial Court praying for dropping of the proceeding. Learned Magistrate by the order dated 20.2.2006 dismissed the said application and directed issuance of process against the accused person who did not appear till then. The said order was assailed by filing a revisional application. Learned Court of Revision by the impugned order dated 31.7.2006 dismissed the revisional application. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that having regard to the fact that the case with an offence punishable with imprisonment for six months only was started as far back as in 1979. It is highlighted on behalf of the present petitioners that the petitioners are above 80 years of age. Reference is made to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jasoda Glass & Silicate & Ors., 2002(2) CHN 407 as well as to the decision in the case of Adoni Cotton Mills & Ors. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors., reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 580. It is the emphatic assertion of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in view of the subsequent payment there cannot be any justification for allowing the instant case to proceed any further even after a lapse of 27 years being equipped with the decision in the case of Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. vs. State of Wast Bengal & Anr., reported in 1999(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 202, submits that mere fact that payments were subsequently made by the petitioners cannot by itself be a good ground for quashing of the proceeding. Mr. Singh further submits that the present petitioners admittedly did not make the payment within the stipulated time and thus, it cannot be denied that they committed the offence and subsequent discharge cannot be a cause for waiver to the prosecution. No doubt, there is force in the submission made by the learned Counsel, Mr. Singh on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. But every case is an authority on which is actually decides. This Court cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that the present petitioners are above 80 years of age. The case relates to an offence punishable with an imprisonment of six months only and as such, it cannot be said to be a minor offence. It is also not in dispute that the case was started 27 years back. The fact that the petitioners made payment subsequently, is also not in dispute.

(3.) Considering all these aspects and in the backdrop of the peculiarity of the circumstances, I am inclined to hold that further continuation of the proceeding will amount to an abuse of the process of Court. No doubt, this is never meant to be a precedent and as indicated earlier each case is required to be determined on the factual matrix of the same.