T J STEPHEN Vs. PARLE BOTTLING CO PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) This appeal is by special leave. The appellant who is Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay alleging commission of offence under S. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 by the respondents 1 and 2. The said case was got transferred to the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Estate, Bombay and was numbered as 82/S of 1983. The respondent No. 1 is a private limited company with its registered office at Bombay and the respondent No. 2 is its Managing Director. To this complaint, proviso (a) of S. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was applicable. Therefore, cognizance was taken of the offence alleged without examining the appellant. On 17-1-1983, an application was filed on behalf of the two accused persons for recall of the summonses and dismissal of the complaint. On 12th of May, 1983, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. The order of the learned Magistrate was assailed before the High Court and on 2-9-1983, the High Court dismissed it. Then the matter was brought to this Court by filing an application for special leave on 12-12-1983, this Court dismissed the leave application. The case set down for trial after charges were framed. An application was made to the trial Court at this stage to discharge the Managing Director, respondent No. 2 in exercise of inherent powers by contending that the company was prepared to admit its guilt and may be appropriately penalised and the Managing Director against whom there was no allegation of any criminal conduct should be discharged. The learned Magistrate by a reasoned order dated 17th February, 1986, dismissed the application and directed that the trial should proceed against both. That order was assailed by the respondents before the Bombay High Court by filing a criminal writ petition. The High Court by its order dated 10th July, 1986, which is impugned in this appeal, held :

(3.) Once the order of the High Court is vacated the order of the learned Magistrate would revive and the prosecution as directed by the learned Magistrate has now to continue. The petition of the complainant at page 21 of the paper-book shows that the offence was committed between 1967 and 1969 which is some 20 years back. While we have no sympathy for the respondent No. 2 and we are clearly of the opinion that he has no equity in his favour and the delay after the complaint had been filed has been mostly on account of his mala fide move, we do not think it would be in the interest of justice to allow a prosecution to start 20 years after the offence has been committed. If we could convict the respondent No. 2 in accordance with law, we would have been prepared to do so taking the facts of the case and conduct of the respondent into consideration but that would not be possible within the framework of the law of procedure. We, therefore, do not propose to allow the learned Magistrate to proceed with the trial of the case at this belated stage.