LexSRI KRISHNA TYRES AND ANR. versus J. K. INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 1130 A SRI KRISHNA TYRES AND ANR. ' v. J. K. INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 846 of 2009) B APRIL 27, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Order of c trial court that two defence witne~ses be permitted to be examined as defence witnesses - Challenge to, in revision petition - Suspension of the order by High Court - Direction to trial court to dispose of the matter - Application uls. 482 challenging the order of trial court - High Court holding that D because in an earlier proceedings order was stayed, trial court justified in completing the trial - On appeal held: In criminal revision, High Court without examining the acceptability of the challenge, could not have suspended the order and directed disposal of trial - It amounted to grant of final relief at an E interim stage - In application u/s. 482, a fait accompli was presented that order was passed pursuant to the earlier order of High Court - Hence, order of High Court in criminal revision and application uls. 482 set aside - High Court to hear revision petition on merits. ~ F CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal r No. 846 of 2009 From the Judgment & Order dated 19.12.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderbad in Criminal G Petition No. 5719 of 2006. .. H.L. Aggrawal, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand, M. lndrani, Abhijit Sengupta for the Appellant. .- H 1130 ,.. / SRI KRISHNA TYRES AND ANR. v. J. K. INDUSTRIES1131 LTD. AND ANR. Shibhashish Mishra, Sachin Das and Debasis Misra for A the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. B 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court disposing of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code'). In the application the order dated 12.12.2006 in CC No.341/ c 1999 passed by a learned lllrd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijaywada, was questioned. The High Court noted that because of the order of stay passed by the High Court in an earlier proceeding in Crl. R.C. No.2026/2006, the trial Court was justified in completing the trial. Learned counsel for the D appellant submitted that the High Court has failed to notice the .. relevant aspects. It is pointed out that three defence witnesses were permitted to be examined as defence witnesses by order of learned Ill Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijaywada, in C.C. 341/99 dated 20.11.2006. The same was E challenged by respondent no.1 by filing a revision petition. What the High Court did by order dated 8th December, 2006 was to direct suspension of the said order. The trial Court was directed to dispose of the matter within one month from the date of the " receipt of the order. This according to learned counsel for the appellant virtually sealed the proceedings and even without F considering the acceptability or otherwise of the petition filed by respondent no.1, the trial was directed to be disposed of. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on the other hand submitted that by virtue of the High Court's order G I proceedings have been completed. 4. It is to be noted that in Criminal Revision No.2026/2006 respondent no. 1 had questioned the correctness of the order permitting the examination of three defence witnesses. Without H 1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A examining the acceptability of the challenge the High Court could not have direct~d disposal of the trial itself while directing suspension of the order impugned before it. In other words, the final relief was granted at an interim stage. 5. When the petition, which is the subject matter of the 8 consideration in the present appeal, was taken up by the High Court a fait accompli was presented that the order have been passed pursuant to the earlier order of the High Court. 6. In the circumstances we set aside the orders dated c 8.12.2006 and 19.12.2006 passed by the High Court. The High Court shall now hear the Crl. R.C.No.2026/2006 and decide it on merits. As a consequence of our order, if any adjudication has been done by the trial Court the same shall ·get nullified. We request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early D as practicable, preferably by the end of October, 2009. 7.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.