Pilot (India) vs Union of India

V.K. Bali, J.

M/s Pilot (India) and others through present petition filed by them under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seek quashing of the complaint (Annexure P2) dated 24.11.1986 under Section 9 of the Central Excise and Salt Act. It is after the framing of the charge that the matter was initiated before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar by way of revision which was dismissed. The preliminary objection raised by the Counsel appearing for the Union of India with regard to maintenance of this petition is that this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioner to file a second Revision and the same is barred under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For her aforesaid contention she relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharampal and others v. Smt. Ramshri and others, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1361 : 1993(1) RecentCR 696 (SC) . The precise argument raised by the learned Counsel is that if the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is held maintainable, it would amount to a second revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, relies upon the judgment of this Court in Charanjit Singh v. Gursharan Kaur, 1990(2) Recent C.R. 584.

During the course of arguments and faced with the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dharam Pal & Ors. case (supra), all that Mr. Mutneja was then left to contend is that in exceptional circumstances, the Court, in its inherent jurisdiction vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can still interfere. Assuming the contention of Mr. Mutneja to be correct, I do not find any exceptional circumstance warranting interference by this Court under Section 487 Cr.P.C. This petition is, thus, dismissed.

Before I part with this order, I would, however, like to mention that since the legal points raised in this petition could not be effectively determined, it shall be open for the petitioners to take up these matters before the trial Magistrate dealing with the matter. Observations made by the Addl. Sessions Judge in his order which has been impugned in this petition would not be taken as an expression of opinion and it would be open for the Magistrate concerned to go into these issues afresh and come to his own conclusions. The Magistrate concerned would, thus, dispose of the matter being uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge. He shall pass speaking order on the legal issues raised in this petition.