SRI KRISHNA TYRES AND ANR.versusJ. K. INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.

                         [2009] 6 S.C.R. 1130


A                 SRI KRISHNA TYRES AND ANR.                             '
                                 v.
                 J. K. INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 846 of 2009)
                           APRIL 27, 2009
B
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                        GANGULY, JJ.]

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Order of
c trial court that two defence witne~ses be permitted to be
   examined as defence witnesses - Challenge to, in revision
  petition - Suspension of the order by High Court - Direction
  to trial court to dispose of the matter - Application uls. 482
  challenging the order of trial court - High Court holding that
D because in an earlier proceedings order was stayed, trial court
  justified in completing the trial - On appeal held: In criminal
   revision, High Court without examining the acceptability of the
  challenge, could not have suspended the order and directed
  disposal of trial - It amounted to grant of final relief at an
E interim  stage - In application u/s. 482, a fait accompli was
  presented that order was passed pursuant to the earlier order
  of High Court - Hence, order of High Court in criminal
  revision and application uls. 482 set aside - High Court to
  hear revision petition on merits.                                  ~

                                                                             r
F       CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 846 of 2009

        From the Judgment & Order dated 19.12.2006 of the High
  Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderbad in Criminal
G Petition No. 5719 of 2006.
                                                                     .
        H.L. Aggrawal, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand, M. lndrani, Abhijit
    Sengupta for the Appellant.                                              .-


H                               1130
                                                                             ,..
                                                          /

        SRI KRISHNA TYRES AND ANR. v. J. K. INDUSTRIES1131
                       LTD. AND ANR.
             Shibhashish Mishra, Sachin Das and Debasis Misra for         A
        the Respondent.

             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

             DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                           B
              2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
         learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
        disposing of the application filed by the petitioner under Section
        482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code').
         In the application the order dated 12.12.2006 in CC No.341/ c
         1999 passed by a learned lllrd Additional Chief Metropolitan
        Magistrate, Vijaywada, was questioned. The High Court noted
        that because of the order of stay passed by the High Court in
        an earlier proceeding in Crl. R.C. No.2026/2006, the trial Court
        was justified in completing the trial. Learned counsel for the
                                                                           D
    .   appellant submitted that the High Court has failed to notice the
        relevant aspects. It is pointed out that three defence witnesses
        were permitted to be examined as defence witnesses by order
        of learned Ill Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
        Vijaywada, in C.C. 341/99 dated 20.11.2006. The same was
        challenged by respondent no.1 by filing a revision petition. What E
        the High Court did by order dated 8th December, 2006 was to
        direct suspension of the said order. The trial Court was directed
        to dispose of the matter within one month from the date of the
    "   receipt of the order. This according to learned counsel for the
        appellant virtually sealed the proceedings and even without F
        considering the acceptability or otherwise of the petition filed
        by respondent no.1, the trial was directed to be disposed of.

            3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on the other
        hand submitted that by virtue of the High Court's order           G
I
        proceedings have been completed.

            4. It is to be noted that in Criminal Revision No.2026/2006
        respondent no. 1 had questioned the correctness of the order
        permitting the examination of three defence witnesses. Without
                                                                          H
    1132        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.


A examining the acceptability of the challenge the High Court
  could not have direct~d disposal of the trial itself while directing
  suspension of the order impugned before it. In other words, the
  final relief was granted at an interim stage.

      5. When the petition, which is the subject matter of the
8 consideration in the present appeal, was taken up by the High
  Court a fait accompli was presented that the order have been
  passed pursuant to the earlier order of the High Court.

          6. In the circumstances we set aside the orders dated
c 8.12.2006 and 19.12.2006 passed by the High Court. The High
  Court shall now hear the Crl. R.C.No.2026/2006 and decide it
  on merits. As a consequence of our order, if any adjudication
  has been done by the trial Court the same shall ·get nullified.
  We request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early
D as practicable, preferably by the end of October, 2009.

          7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

   N.J.                                        Appeal disposed of.




                                                                         ,.