REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.     846         OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.636 of 2007)

Sri Krishna Tyres & Anr. ..Appellants

Versus

J.K. Industries Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

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.341/1999 passed by a learned IIIrd 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.2026/2000, the trial Court was justified in completing the trial.  Learned counsel for the  

appellant submitted that the High Court has failed to notice the relevant aspects.  It is  

pointed out that two defence witnesses were permitted to be examined as defence witnesses  

by  order of  learned III Additional  Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate,  Vijaywada,  in  C.C.  

341/999 dated 20.11.2006.  The same was challenged by respondent no.1 by filing a revision

petition.   What  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  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 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  two  defence  

witnesses.  Without examining the acceptability of the challenge the High Court could not  

have directed 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  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  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 as practicable, preferably by the end of October, 2009.     

7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

……..…………………..….…….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…….……………………………..J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, April 27, 2009