TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o cross-examine the P.W. 1 examined in the case today. Hence it is just and necessary to adjourn the above case for cross examining the Witness P.W. 1 and thus render justice." 3. After hearing the learned Counsel, the lower Court passed the following order on 22-12-1997 in Crl. M.P. No. 989/97 as follows :- .... It appears from the records that the Counsel for the accused has been seeking adjournment saying some reason or other .......... Leaving all those proceedings to the discretion of the complainant i.e. the Department, the accused has been sleeping over the matter, and after the complaint being filed the accused is repeatedly filing applications after applications seeking adjournment. I find no reason in this application also to adjourn the case. .... 4. Aggrieved against the said order the petitioner/accused filed this application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to set aside the order dated 22-12-1997 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 989/97 in C.C. No. 881/93. There is no other prayer set out in this petition except to set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate negativing the prayer of the petitioner to adjourn the case to another date. 5. Section 309 of Cr. P.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectorate, New Delhi and Others [1994 MLJ (Crl) 636] by pointing out to Para 4 of the said judgment wherein it is stated by the Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent that no stay of the operation of the adjudication order was passed by the Appellate Board, whereas in the present case the stay order has been passed by the FERA Board viz., Appellate Board, and in those circumstances the decision reported in 1994 MLJ (Crl) 636 will have no application. Even admitting that there is stay order in this case and the decision of Justice Pratap Singh, J., reported in 1994 MLJ (Crl) 636 will have no application to the facts of the present case, even then the Division Bench of our High Court in the decision reported in 1996 (1) MLJ 260 has not stated that the criminal case should be postponed indefinitely for an unspecified period, and instead the Division Bench of our High Court reported in 1996 (1) MLJ 260 has only stated that the criminal court shall be within its rights to judicially deal with the situation as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal (AIR 1984 S.C. 1693). 8. The Apex Court in the said decision reported in AIR 1984 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 84 S.C. 1693, 1984 Tax L.R. 1197, 1984 (149) I.T.R. 696 and the observations made in this judgment ... 10. Therefore nowhere in the decision of the Division Bench of Madras High Court reported in 1996 (1) MLJ 260 it is stated that the trial of criminal case should be kept pending disposal of appeal before the FERA Board and in view of the stay granted by the FERA Board, the trial should be postponed or adjourned indefinitely or till the disposal of the appeal before the FERA Board. At the best following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 S.C. 1693, in an appropriate case the criminal court can adjourn or postpone the hearing of the criminal case in exercise of its discretionary power under Section 309 of Cr. P.C. if the disposal of any proceeding pending under the FERA Act will have a bearing on the proceedings in the criminal court. 11. Realising this difficulty of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 S.C. 1693, which was followed by a Division Bench of Madras High Court in 1996 (1) MLJ 260, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. B. Kumar appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice a decision of a Single Judge of Madras High Court viz., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of adjudication, nor was it a continuation of that adjudication proceedings and under the FERA Act, there is no prohibition which directly prohibits the filing of the complaint under Section 57 of the FERA Act during the pendency of the appeal before the FERA Board at New Delhi, and that an appeal before the FERA Board against Adjudication proceeding would not be a bar for the criminal proceeding to be proceeded with, since the criminal Court will have to decide the issues arising out of the criminal proceedings on the evidence let in before the criminal Court. It is for the accused to take efforts to expedite the hearing of the appeal before the FERA Board at New Delhi and to get a Judgment at New Delhi as early as possible to put forward as a defence in the criminal case. No such effort was made by the petitioner herein since the appeal is pending for more than six years. Merely because the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the FERA Board in Appeal No. 171 of 1993 which is pending adjudication for more than six years, it cannot be said that an order can be passed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. not to proceed or under Section 309 of Cr. P.C. to adjourn the trial til ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 881/93 shall be given or extended by any one of the courts, and I answer this point accordingly. 16. In the result this petition is allowed. The order dated 22-12-1997 in Crl. M.P. No. 989/97 in C.C. No. 881/93 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II) Egmore, Madras is set aside. The case in C.C. No. 881/93 is adjourned or postponed till 31-8-1998 under Section 309 of Cr. P.C. to enable or facilitate the petitioner/accused to get a disposal of the appeal preferred by him before the FERA Board at New Delhi in Appeal No. 171/93 as expeditiously as possible, and thereafter no further extension of adjournment or postponement of the trial in C.C. No. 881/93 pending on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. II) Egmore, Madras shall be given or extended by any one of the Courts on the ground of pendency of appeal or stay order before FERA Board. Consequently the stay petition in Crl. M.P. 120 of 1998 is dismissed as unnecessary. 17. The Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to FERA Board at 4th Wing, `B Wing, Janpath Bhavan, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001 by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due with reference to App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
