The single judge bench of Justice Karamjit Singh of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ravi Anand Vs State of Punjab held that as regular appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the first appellate Court, so, at this stage, no interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is called for.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the fertilizer inspector inspected the premises of M/s Ashok Kumar and Sons, New Grain Market, Sri Muktsar Sahib and as per the stock register of the firm, 109 bags each weighing 50 kg of Single Super Phosphate 16% were lying in the stock. The sample was drawn and one portion of the sample was given to M/s Ashok Kumar and the other two samples were kept with the fertilizer inspector.
The analysis report was submitted to the chief agriculture officer and the shortcomings were found that (i) the fertilizer in question was not added to the dealer's license in violation of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, (ii) the Stock register was not maintained by the dealer in violation of Section 35 (i)(a); (iii) Licence was not displayed in open space by the dealer; (iv) More than one bag of DAP fertilizer was found open in violation of Section 22(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order; (v) the bills issued by the dealer were not bearing the signatures of the customer in violation of Section 5 of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985; (vi) the dealer could not produce the bill of M/s Shri Ram Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited in violation of Section 5 of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. Thereafter, the complaint was filed by the chief agriculture officer against the dealer, manufacturer, and supplier of the said fertilizer. The trial court convicted the accused persons under Clause 19 (a)(c)(v) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and Sections 7 and 12 AA of the Essential Commodities Act, 1985.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not permanent employee of the Shri Ram Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited, when the premises of M/s Ashok Kumar and Sons were inspected by the Agricultural Development Officer (Fertilizer Inspector) as has been alleged in the complaint. It was further submitted that the M/s Shri Ram Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited was not impleaded as party in the complaint and in its absence, the employee of the said company cannot be held liable.
The counsel contended that the petition under section 482 crpc is maintainable even when the regular appeal against the order of conviction and sentence is pending before the first Appellate Court.
The learned counsel relied upon the judgments titled Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, Ramawtar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC Online SC 966, Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Sube Singh and others v. State of Haryana 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 102.
At last, it was contended that the High Court apart from exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 227 and 235 of the Constitution of India, has a duty to exercise continuous superintendence over the Judicial Magistrates in terms of Section 483 Cr.P.C. as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dharmesh Bhai Vasudev Bhai and others v. State of Gujarat and others; (2009) 6 SCC 576.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state has contended that the current petitioner went through the legal process, was found guilty, and received a prison sentence via judgement and order. He then filed a regular appeal, which is still pending. The current petition was filed under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but it was filed more than seven years after the criminal complaint was initially filed, making it unmaintainable.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment has filed regular appeal and the same is now pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the said appeal, sentence of the petitioner has been suspended. Present petition has been filed prior to the filing of the present petition, the petitioner had never challenged the aforesaid criminal complaint, the trial proceedings and the proceedings in the appeal. Further, It was held that as regular appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the first appellate Court, so, at this stage, no interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is called for. Further, as the appeal is pending before the appellate Court, this Court refrains from making any observations on the merits of the case that will have bearing on the said criminal appeal.
CASE NAME- Ravi Anand Vs State of Punjab
CITATION- CRM-M-11825-2022 (O&M)
CORUM- Justice Karamjit Singh
DATE- 04.11.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
