BIMAL JAIN S/O. CHANDMAL JAIN AND NARESH AHUJA S/O. DHIKARVAS AHUJA Vs. P.K. BATRA, JOINT DIRECTOR, BIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two revision petitions filed under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by 9th Addl. CMM, Bangalore, in Spl. C.C. Nos. 47/97 and 48/97, refusing to order for their discharge on the application filed by them under Section 239 r/w 245(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE Petitioners in Crl.R.P. No. 230/2011. have been arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Spl. C.C. No. 47/97 and Petitioners in Crl.R.P. No. 229/11 have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 4 in Spl. C.C. No. 48/97. They are accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provisions of Clause (3) and (4) of the Mild Steel Tubes (Quality Control Order) 1978. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Joint Director, Enforcement, Bureau of Indian Standards, Bangalore, Market Police, Bangalore, registered case in Cr. No. 237/93 against the owner of M/s. Khandelwal Brothers Limited, SJP Road Bangalore and others. After investigation, the I.O. filed 'B' report. The complainant filed protest petition against the said 'B' report. An independent complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure was also filed by way of protest to the 'B' report filed by the police. After recording the sworn statement of the compliment, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged and issued summons to the Petitioners. The Petitioners herein appeared before the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, who was the then jurisdictional Court, accused 2 and 3 sought for their discharge interalia on the ground that the materials on record does not make out any offences against them.

(3.) WHEN the matter was set down for trial, the Petitioners once again sought for discharge by filing an application under Section 239 and 245(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The said application was opposed by the complainant. By considered order dated 14.09.10, the jurisdictional Magistrate rejected the said application relying mainly an the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.P. Nos. 467/00 and 468/00. In these revision petitions filed under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner have sought for quashing the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting their application for discharge.