A.K.Dutta, J. - (1.) The petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused) by his instant Revisional Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shortened into Code), has prayed the Court for quashing the relevant proceedings, being Complaint Case No. C/2493/72, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta, mainly on the grounds that the evidence of the 23 witnesses examined so far, taken on their face value, do not make out even a prima facie case against him and drat in view of tire long pendency of the said proceedings, he has suffered great mental agony and hardship during the last 22 years and in the interest of justice such a lame prosecution should not be allowed to continue and should be quashed in the background and facts and circumstances indicated therein.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the aforesaid relevant proceedings may shortly be stated as follows:- On or about 22.5.1970 a report, being Crime No. 10/E/70 dated 22.5.70, was drawn up against Lankupara Tea Co. Ltd., Jalpaiguri, and two others for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 120B, read with Section 5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. Since the aforesaid alleged offence was a non-cognizable offence, the concerned C.B.I. Inspector had filed the said report before the learned Magistrate on 23.5.1970 praying for permission to investigate the matter under Section 155(2) of the Code, which was allowed by the learned Magistrate fixing 25.8.1970 for report. On prayer by petition by the Investigating Officer on 16.6.70, the then Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, had issued four search warrants under Section 96 of the Code whereupon the former had returned the search warrants, along with seizure lists showing seizure of documents, before the learned Magistrate on 26.6.70. But despite a number of opportunities granted to the Investigating Officer no report had been submitted by him in the matter for quite sometime. On his prayer for extension of time on 17.8.71, he was allowed time till 16.11.71 for submitting report in the matter. But no report was submitted by him on that date. He had again prayed for extension of time on 15.12.71 which was extended by the learned Magistrate till 16.2.72 clearly indicating that no further time would be allowed. The I.O. had thereafter filed a petition before the learned Magistrate on 24.1.72 praying for issue of summons under Section 94 of the Code upon M/s. Mcleod & Co. Ltd. for production of certain documents which was allowed by the learned Magistrate fixing 16.2.72 for return and orders. After a number of adjournments, in the meantime, the Investigating Officer had filed a complaint against the accused on 17.8.1972, after a lapse of more than two years, for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter shortened into Act), whereupon the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence and had directed issue of process against the accused fixing 14.9.72 for his appearance. The prosecution case, inter alia, is that M/s. Martin Burn Ltd., Calcutta, as agent of M/s. Roston Hornby Ltd. imported certain spare parts under Import licences on actual users quota which were ultimately transferred to M/s. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. It is alleged that the accused had sold the imported parts in violation of the conditions of licence.
(3.) It is contended by the petitioner-accused that since he was out of the town, the summons could not be served upon him and when be came to know about the issue of summons against him he had surrendered before the Court by petition on 11.10.72 and was released on bail. On his prayer by petition he was further allowed by the learned Magistrate to be represented by his learned Lawyer.;