B.H. Prakash vs State and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crime No. 140/2012 of Sindhanoor Police Station which was culminated in C.C. No. 868/2012 on the file of JMFC Sindhanoor. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Addl. SPP for State. Perused the records.

The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that:--

On 16-6-2012 at about 6-30 p.m., the complainant by name Shekharappa Gaddi, Asst Agriculture Officer, APMC Yard Sindhanoor, filed a written complaint stating that on information received by him from one K. Narasimha Reddy, Assistant Secretary, APMC Sindhanoor, to the effect that on 15-6-2012 at check post, he checked a lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-52-C-1454, wherein he found 360-pockets each containing 25-kg of Beejraj paddy sowing seeds. On such information, the complainant has visited the said spot and checked the offending vehicle. He found the vehicle containing the above said packets which are meant for distribution amongst the farmers through the Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Sindhanoor for sowing. The petitioner who is the manager of Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Sindhanoor and another person by name Navaratna Mal S/o. Neminath, cited as accused No. 2 were involved in selling the said seeds to make illegal gain for themselves, which ought to have been distributed amongst the farmers. It is the allegation that they have sold the said seeds for higher rates to others and thereby they have committed the offences punishable u/Secs. 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and also u/Secs. 409 and 420 of IPC. On the basis of above said written complaint and panchanama lodged by the complainant, the jurisdictional police i.e. Sindhanoor Police have registered a case in Crime No. 140/2012 and after due investigation, they found sufficient materials against the petitioner and another have submitted a charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

After appearance before the Court, it appears, this petitioner has filed an application u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., challenging the charge-sheet filed by the police and sought his discharge for the offences leveled against him. The learned Magistrate has passed a detailed Order Dated: 23-06-2014 and thereby rejected the said application and consequently refused to discharge the petitioner/accused for the above said offences and proposed to frame charge against the petitioner/accused.

Being felt aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner has approached the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 143/2014. However, the learned Sessions Judge vide Order Dated: 4-2-2015 dismissed the said application only on the ground of delay without touching the merits of the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that this Court has got ample powers u/Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., even to look into the charge-sheet papers and FIR and to quash the entire proceedings. I must say here that at the time when the FIR was registered or at the time when the charge-sheet is filed, this petitioner has not approached this Court u/Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the said proceedings. He has chosen to appear before the learned Magistrate and filed application for his discharge u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., when the FIR is already been culminated into charge-sheet and cognizance has already been taken by the Court and particularly when the Magistrate has applied his judicious mind and rejected the application which was rightly challenged before the Revisional Court, at this stage, he cannot approach this Court seeking quashing of the FIR and the charge-sheet, as the petitioner virtually putting the horse behind the cart. Though this Court has got ample powers u/Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., but normally it should not venture upon to deviate from the regular procedure contemplated under the Code or Criminal Procedure by usurping the powers of trial or appellate or revisional Courts. Under the above background, now let the see whether learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the materials on record and refused to hear the matter on merits. Of course, there is delay in filing the revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that there is delay of 135-days in preferring the revision petition. The learned Sessions Judge has also observed that the revision petitioner is an educated person, a public servant, working as Manager of Karnataka State Seeds Corporation, in spite of the knowledge that the revision has to be filed within a specified period of time, he purposely filed the revision petition in a delayed manner. Further it is observed by the learned Sessions Judge that even after passing of the order by the trial Court, he appeared before the Court and it was well within his knowledge the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, there are no reasons to condone the delay and therefore the learned Sessions Judge has declined to condone the delay and consequently without touching the merits of the case, dismissed the revision petition.

Of course, the learned Sessions Judge has observed those things which shows inaction on the part of the petitioner. But, all the in-actions cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of snubbing substantive right of a person. Further added to mat, the Criminal Justice Administration System mainly concentrate to adjudicate the rights of the parties in a full fledged manner and not by snubbing the rights of the parties and making them to approach higher Courts. It is a fundamental basic principle of law that the delay which is not unreasonable and deliberate and which will not create any right in favour of adverse party or would not benefit the person who filed the revision petition in any manner in that broader view the Court has to consider as to whether the delay is un-reasonable in nature. Even considering the delay of 135-days cannot be at any stretch of imagination be called as un-reasonable delay. The delay even if it is taken into consideration, it would not benefit the petitioner in any manner and he is the person who has to suffer the order at the hands of the trial Court. He is having right to approach the Revisional Court or Appellate Court in order to seek substantive justice at the hands of the Court. Further added to that, the opposite party is the State and the State would not lose any right or State would not get any benefit if the delay is not condoned. On the other hand, it appears the State has not filed any objections to the said delay application. Looking from the above said facts and circumstances of the case, when the petitioner has urged so many grounds, which, in my opinion, which are legal points that have been raised with regard to exemption of the accused as contended u/Sec. 22 of Seeds Act and also the complainant subsequently realizing his mistake has made application seeking withdrawal of the complaint and the other materials on record in the charge-sheet papers have not been properly appreciated and considered by the learned Magistrate. When such grounds are urged it becomes the duty of Sessions Judge to look into the materials and give findings on merits of the case. Under the above said circumstances, in my opinion, even for such delay of 135-days, the lenient view ought to have been taken by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the application filed u/Sec. 5 of Limitation Act ought to have been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. Under the above said circumstances, in my opinion, though this petition deserves to be dismissed u/Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings, but, when it is brought to the notice of this Court that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated materials on record, though the said order has not been strictly challenged before this Court, I am of the considered opinion that by exercising power u/Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., the order which has been brought to the notice of this Court, which is not properly passed by the revisional Court, this Court can set right the said mistake in order to advance substantive justice to the parties. With these observations, I proceed to pass the following:--

The petition filed u/Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., is hereby partly allowed.

The Order Dated: 4-2-2015 passed in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 143/2014 by the learned II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge at Raichur, is hereby set aside. Consequently, Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 143/2014 is restored on the file of learned Sessions Judge.

The application filed u/Sec. 5 of Limitation Act, by the petitioner in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 143/2014 by the learned II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge at Raichur, is allowed.

The learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose off the said revision petition on merits.

The grounds urged before this Court are open to the petitioner to be urged before the learned Sessions Judge.