A P JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, purporting to have been filed under sections 297 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the New Code), has arisen under the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioners, 4 in number, are officers and employees of a public limited company known as Messrs Jaipur Udhyog Limited, Sawai Madhopur. THEy are facing trial in a summons-case pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur. THE case was instituted on a complaint filed by the Inspector, Weights and Measures, Sawai Madhopur, on December 21, 1973. THE petitioners arc accused of the commission of various offences punishable under the Rajasthan Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958, (No. 32 of 1958), and the Rules framed thereunder. On a prayer made by them in their application filed under sections 205 and 540a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for short, the Old Code), the Magistrate dispensed with the personal attendance of all the four accused and permitted them to appear by their pleader. He recorded their pleas under sections 243 and 244 of the Old Code through their pleader. Evidently, the pleader did not make the admission of guilt on behalf of the petitioners That is way the Magistrate proceeded to record the statement of the complainant and of the witnesses produced by him in the trial. He has already concluded the recording of evidence produced by the prosecution. THE accused did not appear in person through out the recording of the evidence of the prosecution, for, as already stated, they have been exempted from personal attendance and permitted to appear by their pleader.

(3.) WHILE construing this saving clause in the manner indicated above, I am not being oblivious of the view that sometimes an appeal and even a revision is taken to be a continuation of the original suit or proceeding and, in that sense, it may be argued that the present revision being a continuation of the original proceedings in the trial must be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Old Code. In the instant case, however, it cannot, by any stretch of construction, be urged that this particular revision is a continuation of the original trial. The present petition is plainly a proceeding which has arisen out of an interlocutory application made to the trial court for an order for further dispensing with the personal attendance of the petitioners in the trial and for permitting them to make statements under sec. 342, if necessary, through their pleader. It will be seen that even if this application were to be allowed by this Court, the original prosecution in the trial court would not thereby be terminated or disposed of. The main test, which determines whether an appeal or revision is a continuation of the original suit or proceeding, is to find out whether the decision in the appeal or revision would dispose of the said suit or proceeding in its entirety. If, notwithstanding the decision in such appeal or revision, the original suit or proceeding still remained undecided and therefore pending in the inferior court, such appeal or revision, cannot, in law or logic, be described as a continuation of the original suit or proceeding.