S. P. E. MADRAS versus K. V. SUNDARAVELU

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 460 · Decided: 08-03-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
460 
S. P. E. MADRAS 
v. 
K. V. SUNDARAVELU 
March 8, 1978 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SmNGHAL, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code (Act V), 1898, Section 215--Committa[ orders can 
be quashed by the High Court only on a point of law-Li1nitation for taking 
cognizance of offence-Evidence Act (Act I), 1872, Sections 40 to 44, relevancy 
of previous judgment. 
The respondent who was charged of offences under sections 420, 471 read with 
o;ection 466 Indian Penal Code and Section 132 of Customs Act was com-
mitted to the Court of Sessions. The offence related to alleged tan:ipering with 
seals affixed by the Textile Inspector on the bales containing hand.loom fabric 
known as "Bleeding Madras". 
The Court split the case into 
two so that 
&ssions Case No. 34/68 was registered for the trial of the offence relating to 
93 bales v1h_ich were covered by a particular invoice and' Sessions Case No. 2 / 
1~70 was registered for the goods relating to 19 bales which were covered by 
a different invoice. Sessions Case 34 of 1968 ended in conviction of the respon-
. dent, but on an appeal the High Court acquitted him giving him the benefit 
D 
of doubt. When the secilnd C2tie was taken uo for trial, the respondent moved 
the Ifigh Court under section 215 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, for 
quashing the "proceedings". The· High Court allO\\'Cd the application holding 
( 1) that the evidence in both the cases being similar and one case having ended 
in acquittal, further prosecution in the present case would amount to abuse of 
the process of the Court; (ii) even otherwise the alleged offiences were com-
mitted somewhere in 1965 and it would be unfair, if not unjust, to put the 
petitioner on trial after about ten years and (iii) the charges were "not likely 
to stand''. 
· 
E 
, 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court 
HELD : The trial of the case had not started and there \Vas no justification 
for taking the view that evidence in both the cases was similar. Moreover it is 
not the requirement of law that if one caee has ended in acquittal prosecution 
in another case would be illegaJ.. 
So also it could not be said that the lligh 
Court's opinion that the charge was not likely to stand the trial was on a point 
of law within the meaning of sectioo 215. The High Court therefore lost sight 
of its limitation under section 215 and quashed the "Proceedings" for reasons 
"Y!:ich were extraneous to that section. [463 A-Bl 
The Iligh Cou1t took its earlier judgment in Sessions Case No. 34 of 1968 
into consideration in reaching its conclusion. 
Here again it lost sight of the 
provfaions of sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act which. State the circums-
tances of which previous judgments are relevant in evil and criminal cases. The 
judgment in S.C. No. 34 of 1968 was clearly "irrelevamt'' under those provisicms. 
[463 C, D. Fl 
In fact it was not in controversy that Sessions Case No. 2 of 1970 concerned 
the trial of the respondent in respect of 19 bales which formed the subject 
ma1ter of separate· invoices and of which the goods were inspected on different 
dates. It was also not controverted that a different officer inspected three of 
those bales and found them to be substandard goods and they were not the sub-
ject matter of the trial in case No. 34 of 1968. 
[464 A-BJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal .Appeal No. 375 
of 1976. 
• \ 
-
T 
) 
- .... 
• 
• 
I 
' 
' I' 
....... 
S.P.E. MADRAS v. K. v. SUNDARAVEL!J (Shinghal, /.) 
461 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dt. 
A 
4-12-75 of the Madras High Court in Cr!. Misc. Petition No. 1029/ 
75). 
H. S. Marwah & R. N. Sachthey for the Appellant. 
S. Goindswaminadhan, I. Subramanium, Veena 
Devi 
Khanna 
and K. Rajindra Chowdhary for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SmNGHAL J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against 
the judgment of the Madras High Court dated December 4, 1975, 
quashing the "proceedings pending in S. C. No. 2 of 1970 on the 
file of the First Assistant Sessions Judge, Madras." The facts giving 
B 
rise to the appeal have been stated in the petition for special leave 
c 
and have not been disputed. 
Respondent K. V. Sundaravelu carried on business as an exporter 
in Madras. 
He had a quota for the export of the handloom fabric 
known as "Bleeding Madras" for the period April 1, .1965 to March 
31, 1966. It was one of the conditions of ,his export licence that 
he should produce
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.