The Supreme Court held on Monday that the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial while deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. According to the bench of Justices M. R. Shah and J. B.V. Nagarathna, the High Court annulled the criminal proceedings because there was no loss to the Excise Department. However, the High Court did not take the allegations of a larger conspiracy seriously.
While this case, the Allahabad High Court, in exercising its authority under Section 482 Cr.P.C., invalidated the whole criminal proceedings, including the chargesheet and summons order, arising out of the Criminal Case. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the Allahabad High Court’s judgement.
“As observed and held by this court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Sectuon 482 CrPC jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.”
A demand order for the supply of three beer trucks to M/s United Breweries Limited (one of the respondents) was issued by Sanjeet Jaiwal, the manager of M/s Beehive Alcoweb, a company that deals in beer, on September 11, 2018.
He also transferred a total of 92,98,902 to have two trucks delivered in Lucknow and one truck delivered in Varanasi.
United Breweries Limited asked SICAL Logistics Limited Company, its carrier, to arrange a vehicle and deliver goods to Beehive. Meanwhile, SICAL called another transport business, which hired two vehicles equipped with GPS systems to deliver the shipment to Beehive in Lucknow.
The beer shipment was dispatched on September 11, 2018. However, on September 13, 2018, the GPS systems in both vehicles lost contact with the GPS tracking agency. With no positive reaction from the supplier and the goods not being delivered despite full payment, Sanjeet Jaiwal filed a First Information Report (FIR) under IPC Sections 406 and 420 (cheating).
The management of SICAL filed a separate FIR under Sections 420 and 406 IPC in the meantime, accusing the drivers of both trucks as well as one other unidentified person.
The respondents, which included Akhil Sharda, Aravind Padha, Himanshu Tiwari, and M/s United Breweries Limited, petitioned the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to have the proceedings against them quashed.
Section 482 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states, nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Source: indiankanoon.org
The Court approved the plea and quashed the whole case, including the chargesheet and summoning order for one FIR. The appellants then filed this appeal with the Supreme Court. The appellants contended that the High Court erred in quashing the entire proceedings of one FIR since it was intertwined with another and could not be separated.
It was also contended that the High Court failed to consider the charges in the quashed FIR, which comprised claims of forging data and uploading incorrect data and related to the disappearances of trucks loaded with beer.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Counsel for the appellant, contended that the High Court did not fully appreciate and/or evaluate the greater conspiracy when passing the impugned decision and order quashing the criminal proceedings.
According to Shri Ranjeet Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent, the High Court made no mistake in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings because it was nothing more than an abuse of the legal process.
In the case of Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and Ors. vs. HPA International and Ors., the Supreme Court stated that “a long delay in the delivering of the judgement gives rise to unnecessary speculations in the minds of the parties in a case.”
“The allegation of missing of two trucks was the beginning of the investigation and when during the investigation it was alleged that earlier also a number of trucks were missing transporting contraband goods, the FIR should not have been restricted to missing of the two trucks only and return of on the goods thereafter. The High Court has not at all appreciated and/ or considered the allegation of the larger conspiracy and that both the FIRs/ criminal cases are interconnected and part of the main conspiracy which is very serious if found to be true.”
In view of the findings, the Supreme Court granted the appeal and overturned the impugned judgement and order of the Allahabad High Court.
The appellants were represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati and Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi. The respondents were represented by senior advocates Ranjit Kumar and Sidhartha Dave.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v Akhil Sharda and Others