Sri Krishna Tyres
& ANR. Vs. J.K. Industries Ltd. & ANR.  INSC 831 (27 April 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 846 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.636 of 2007) Sri Krishna Tyres & Anr.
..Appellants Versus J.K. Industries Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
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.341/1999 passed by a learned
IIIrd 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.2026/2000, the trial Court was justified
in completing the trial. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
High Court has failed to notice the relevant aspects. It is pointed out that
two defence witnesses were permitted to be examined as defence witnesses by
order of learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijaywada, in
C.C. 341/999 dated 20.11.2006. The same was challenged by respondent no.1 by
filing a revision petition. What the High Court did by order dated 8 th
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 considering the acceptability or
otherwise of the petition filed by respondent no.1, the trial was directed to
be disposed of.
counsel for the respondent no.1 on the other hand submitted that by virtue of
the High Court's order proceedings have been completed.
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 two
defence witnesses. Without examining the acceptability of the challenge the
High Court could not have directed 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.
the petition, which is the subject matter of the 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.
the circumstances we set aside the orders dated 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 as practicable, preferably by the end
of October, 2009.
appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
Pages: 1 2