Ramesh Gupta vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Jain, J.

Heard.

Accused applicant Dr. Ramesh Gupta who is facing trial on the charge under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, is aggrieved by the order dated 21-8-2001 passed by the Trial Magistrate directing for implead-ment of one Maheshchandra Gupta as co-accused of the case and for his trial jointly with the present accused applicant.

The impugned order is passed by taking recourse to Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is significant to note that the offence in question was committed way-back on 22-12-79. The charge-sheet in the case was filed on 6-1-1982. The charges were framed on 1-4-82. It was only after the entire prosecution evidence was recorded and the case was closed for judgment that the learned Magistrate on his own passed the impugned order, thus, reopening the entire case after more than 20 years of its institution.

While Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives ample power to Court to take cognizance and add any person not being an accused before it and try him alongwith other accused, the power is really an extra-ordinary power conferred on the Court and should be used sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for exercise of such powers. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others, . Any order under this provision ought to be passed at the earliest and at the proper stage and within a reasonable period of time.

In a recent decision the Apex Court in Michael Machado and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, , has laid down the guidelines for exercise of power u/s 319, Cr.PC in following words :

But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words "the Court may proceed against such person". The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that other person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons.

In the instant case the Trial Magistrate seems to have misdirected himself in taking recourse to Section 319, Cr.PC at this distance of time, thus wasting the whole labour already undertaken all these 20 years. The impugned order is likely to cause prejudice to the present accused who has already suffered ordeal of protracted trial for all these twenty years. I have no manner of doubt that it is a case of misuse of the process of the Court.

This petition, thus, succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 21-8-2001 passed in Criminal Case No. 426/94 is set aside.

A copy of this order be transmitted immediately to the Trial Magistrate.

Misc. Criminal Case allowed.