LexPUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION FARIDKOT versus M/S SH. DURGA JI TRADERS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 387 PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION A FARIDKOT v. M/S SH. DURGA JI TRADERS & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 2226 of 2011) NOVEMBER 28, 2011 [D. K. JAIN AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.482 -Petition seeking to quash the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the criminal complaint for default - Dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy - Held: Availability of an alternative remedy of filing an appeal B c is not an absolute bar in entertaining a petition uls 482 - One D of the circumstances envisaged in the section for exercise of jurisdiction by High Court is to secure the ends of justice - Trial court had dismissed the complaint on a technical ground and, therefore, interest of justice required the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction to set aside such an order so that the E trial court could proceed with the trial on merits - Rejection of petition uls 482 rather resulted in miscarriage of justice - Orders of High Court and the Magistrate are set aside and the complaint is restored to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate - Administration of criminal justice. F Personal appearance of complainant - Exemption granted - Complaint dismissed by trial court for default - Held: Trial court erred in holding that since the complainant had been appearing in person despite the order exempting him from personal appearance the said exemption order G become redundant and the complainant should have sought a fresh exemption from personal appearance - Order of exemption from personal appearance continues to be in force till it is revoked or recalled- Practice and Procedure. 387 H 388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A SUMMONS/PROCESS - Service of summons - Held: Since the respondents refused to accept the summons, they would be deemed to have been served -- Practice and procedure. Jeffrey J. Diermeier & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & B Anr. 2010 (7) SCR 128 = (2010) 6 SCC 243; and Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 465 = (2001) 8 sec 570 - relied on Aseem Shabanli Merchant Vs. Brij Mehra & Anr. (2005) C 11 SCC 412; Mohd. Azeem Vs. A. Venkatesh & Anr. (2002) 7 SCC 726; and Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd & Ors.. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2008 (17) SCR 844 =(2009) 2 sec 370 - cited. D Case Law Reference: (2005) 11 sec 412 cited para 6 (2002) 1 sec 726 cited para 6 2008 (17) SCR 844 cited para 6 E 2010 (7) SCR 128 relied on para 8 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 465 relied on para 8 CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal F No. 2226 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 18.02.2008 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No. 27097-M of 2006. G Dr. Ashok Dhamija, A.P. Dhamija, Sarad Kumar Slnghania for the Appellant. The following order of the Court was delivered H PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION FARIDKOT v. DURGA JI TRADERS & ORS. ORDER 1. _Leave granted. 389 A 2. This appeal, by special leave, arises from judgment dated 18th February, 2008 rendered by a learned Single Judge 8 of the High Court of Judicature for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"), seeking quashing of C orders dated 18th February 2003, by which the Criminal Complaint filed against the respondents in this appeal, for having committed offences under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") had been dismissed in default by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar; and 9th November 2005 by which the application for restoration of the D said complaint was dismissed. 3. Succinctly put, the material facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: The appellant, a statutory body, constituted under the E Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962, file·d a private criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC against the respondents, alleging shortage of huge quantity of rice in respect of paddy entrusted to them as miller. Simultaneously, F an application for exemption from personal appearance of the complainant therein, was also filed, whereon the following order was passed by the Trial Court on 16th April 1999. "In view of the application made by the complainant presence of complainant is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.