K.N. Krishnamoorthy vs Agricultural Officer (Q.C), Mettupalayain

Rengasamy, J.—This revision is directed against the order of the learned Special Judge under the Essential Commodities Act cases at Coimbatore, ordering for impleading the revision petitioner as an accused in the place of one Hegde (who was arrayed as accused No. 2) whose name was deleted on the application of the said Hegde.

The said Hegde and some others are prosecuted by the respondent herein for the offence under Sections 7(i) and 7(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause 19(1) of the Fertilizer Control order, 1985. The said Hegde filed Crl.M.P. No. 711790 to delete his name from the proceedings for the reason that, except the fact that he was the Executive Director, he has nothing to do with the administration and, therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence alleged in the complaint. The learned Special Judge, accepting his contention ordered for deleting his name from the proceedings. However, he directed that, one Krishnamoorthy has to be impleaded as the second accused in the place of Hegde, whose name he ordered to be deleted for the reason, that the said Krishnamoorthy was nominated under Clause 24 of the Fertilizer Control Order, and, therefore, he was looking after the day-to-day administration of the first respondent. As the said Krishnamoorthy has been directed to be impleaded as second accused, he has filed this revision against the order of the learned Special Judge.

Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that, only u/s 319, Cr.P.C. a new party can be impleded and the stage for impleading such new party will be after the enquiry or trial, that too, after recording the evidence, and in this case the enquiry itself has not commenced, and, therefore, the court below was not right in ordering for impleading the said Krishnamoorthy suo motu, that too, without even a request from the complainant. Learned counsel has cited the following decisions, viz., Hukamaram v. State of Rajasthan (1992 CrI.LJ. 2341), Gunaram Tanti and another v. State of Assam (1983 Crl.LJ.289) to give the meaning of the word "evidence" appearing in Section 319, O.P.C. and in these decisions, it is made clear that the word "evidence" would not attract the statement made u/s 161 Cr.P.C. before the police. In Gulam Mondial v. Nazam Hossain (1987 Crl.LJ.729) the word "evidence" is explained the evidence recorded in court both examination in chief and cross-examination. Therefore, the stage referred to u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is the stage after recording the evidence in the proceedings. But, in this case as the enquiry itself has not commenced, no evidence has been recorded. Further as stated above, the prosecution has not asked for impleading the said Krishnamoorthy as an accused in the place of the second accused Hegde. But, the court has ordered for impleading the said Krishnamoorthy, the revision petitioner herein without any request or proper evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor is not inclined to support this order of the learned Special Judge. Therefore, the order of the Learned Judge directing to implead the revision petitioner Krishnamoorthy is not sustainable, though the order for deleting the name of the second accused Hegde is not challenged by the prosecution. Therefore, the revision has to be allowed.

In the result, the revision is allowed in so far as the direction to implead the revision petitioner Krishnamoorthy as an accused.