DHANRAJ JAIN Vs. B K BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule relates to an order dated the 8th of February, 1975, passed by Shri R. N. Kali, learned Metropolitan magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta, framing charges under section 5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, read with section 120 (B) I. P. C. against the accused petitioners in case No. C 2140 of 1941 and for quashing the proceedings in the said case.

(2.) IT appears' that Sri B. K. Biswas, deputy Chief Controller of Import and export filed a complaint on 23. 9. 71 before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate for some offences under section 5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, read with section 120 (B) I. P. C. against the petitioners and another alleging that the petitioners Dhanraj jain and Sushil Kumar Jain were the partners of Ms. D. R. Kumar Brothers of P 10, New How rah Bridge Approach Road, Calcutta, and of Ms. Orient Trade Enterprises, 278, Rupnagar Delhi ; both the firms being [registered with Director of Industries, Haryana, in 1964 as small scale industries. The allegation further is that Ms. D. R. Kumar Brothers was also registered under Engineering Export production scheme as manufacturers and exporters on the condition, inter alia, that the said firm would utilise imported materials as per terms and conditions of the licence. It is further alleged that twelve import licence were issued in favour of ms. D. R. Kumar Brothers and Ms. Orient Trade Enterprises between 25th of March. 1967, and 21st of August, 1968, on condition that the properties imported against the licence shall be utilised only in the factory at Haryana for production purposes and that no portion shall be sold or permitted to be utilised by any other party. It is further alleged that between 19. 12. 67 and 19. 12. 68 the accused sold the inn ported zinc ingots to different parties instead of utilising them in the production of Haryana factory on actual user basis. The petition of complaint contains the names of a large number of witnesses. After examining 23 witnesses the learned Metropolitan Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners. The said order and the proceedings are challenged in the present petition.

(3.) MR. Dhar appearing in support of the rule urged a number of points. The first hurdle that faces him is the section 397 (2) of the new Criminal Procedure Code which provides that the power of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. Framing of charge is nothing but written formulation of specific accusation and communicated to the accused so that he may defend himself. The controversy between the parties cannot be said to be finally set at rest by framing charges. We have already held in the case of Biswanath Asanmla vs. The state reported in 80 C. W. N. 14, 1975 chn 164: (1975) 2 C. L. J. 440 ; that framing of charge is an interlocutory order.