By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code , seeking quashing of orders dated 18th February 2003, by which the Criminal Complaint filed against the respondents in this appeal, for having companymitted offences under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short IPC had been dismissed in default by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar and 9th November 2005 by which the application for restoration of the said companyplaint was dismissed.
Succinctly put, the material facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows The appellant, a statutory body, companystituted under the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962, filed a private criminal companyplaint under Sections 406 and 409 of the IPC against the respondents, alleging shortage of huge quantity of rice in respect of paddy entrusted to them as miller.
Sd CJM 18.2.03 The application for restoration of the companyplaint was ultimately dismissed on 9th November 2005, by the following order After companysidering the arguments of the parties at length, I am companysidered of the view that companyplaint was dismissed in default.
Sd Chief Judicial Magistrate Muktsar At this stage an application for restoration of the companyplaint has been filed on the ground that personal appearance of the companyplainant was already exempted vide order dated 16.4.99.
From the perusal of the record, it appears that companyplainant has never moved any fresh application for exemption number the same was ever allowed and as such the order of dismissal dated 19.2.03 has become final and companynsel for the accused has referred the Apex Court judgments and I have gone through the same and find a force in the companytention of the learned companynsel for accused.
Consequently, vide order dated 18th September, 2009 the respondents were deemed to have been served.
Simultaneously, an application for exemption from personal appearance of the companyplainant therein, was also filed, whereon the following order was passed by the Trial Court on 16th April 1999.
This appeal, by special leave, arises from judgment dated 18th February, 2008 rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
However, on 18th February 2003 the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the case for number appearance of the companyplainant even though the pleader for the appellant was present in companyrt.
The orders have become redundant and the companyplainant had to seek afresh exemption from appearance.
Aggrieved thereby the appellant moved the High Court with a petition under Section 482 of the Code for setting aside of the said orders and restoration of the companyplaint.
The trial proceeded in the numbermal companyrse for six years.
Complainant was already exempted from the personal appearance on 16.4.99 and thereafter he appeared in the companyrt in person.
There is numberprovision in Criminal Procedure Code to review the order and recall the summons.
The order reads thus None is present on behalf of the companyplainant number any request has been received on behalf of the companyplainant.
In view of the application made by the companyplainant presence of companyplainant is exempted till further orders.
Hence, application moved by the applicant is hereby declined and accused are also discharged.
However, let the numberice to the accused regarding the application be given present in the companyrt for 24.3.03.
As per the office report, the respondents had refused to accept summons when the same were tendered to them by the process server.
File be also produced on the date fixed.
Both the accused are present on bail.
Copy supplied to the companynsel for accused.
Leave granted.
File be companysigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
Hence the present appeal by the companyplainant.
