Brij Mohan vs State of Haryana and anr..

Harbans Singh Rai, J.—This is a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ambala. dated June 8,1987, allowing the application of the complainant for additional evidence.

A complaint under section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was pending against the petitioner in the Court of Shri R. C. Bansal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala.

After close of the prosecution evidence it was fixed for arguments on April 3, 1987 when the application was made by the complainant. A plea had been taken by the defence stating that there was nocompliance of rule 7(3) of PFA Rules and further plea had been taken that the Prosecution had been launched late. The complainant prayed that be wants to disprove the same by the additional evidence. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated June 8, 1987, allowed the complainant to produce certain documents through a clerk of local Health Authority as additional evidence.

Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated June 8, 1987 the petitioner has filed this Petition for quashing the same.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection to the effect that this petition is not competent. In support of his contention, be has relied upon, Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 1979 C L.R. (Pb. & Har.) 253. The objection of the learned counsel for the respondent, is that allowing or disallowing of additional evidence is an interlocutory order and revision against such an order is barred under section 397(2), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It is further argued that when, revision against an interlocutory order is specifically barred, inherent powers cannot be resorted to for quashing the said order. I have considered the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is plain that an order to allow additional evidence is patently an interlocutory one, the bar of section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is, therefore, apparently attracted. Obviously, to by pass the statutory hurdle, present petition is sought to be moved for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The scope of exercising the inherent Powers under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is very restricted. It is to be exercised only when a finding can be arrived at that the order is the clearest abuse of the process of the Court and this power is to be exercised very sparingly. In the present case a considered judicial order passed by the trial Court with regard to the adducing of additional evidence can neither be styled as abuse of process of Court nor a matter which would necessitate the involving of the inherent jurisdiction. The trial Court has only allowed certain documents which are to be placed on file. It is nobody''s case that the documents sought to be produced could be fabricated or there was any motive for their late production.

I do not find any legal defect in the order and the order being interlocutory is not challengeable. The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is not competent as no abuse or process of Court is involved nor a case has been made out for invoking the inherent jurisdiction.

That being so, I am of the view that this petition is not competent and is dismissed.