M/S Eon Polymers LTD And Anr vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Eon Polymers Ltd and its Managing Director, Mr. Rajeev Malik, filed a criminal miscellaneous petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. They challenged two orders: an order dated 13.06.2013 passed by the Trial Court and an order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Revisional Court. These orders directed that charges be framed against the petitioners. The High Court had previously directed the Trial Court to submit a report on the current status of the proceedings. The report indicated that the Trial Court, in criminal proceedings No. 1148/2006 (Union of India vs. M/s Eon Polymers Ltd & Ors), had passed an order on 19.12.2015, convicting the accused and sentencing them to simple imprisonment for two years. An appeal against this conviction was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 16.11.2018. A further revision petition against the Appellate Court's order was pending before the High Court. However, the current criminal miscellaneous petition stated that no proceedings were pending before the Trial Court.

Held

The Court held that the criminal miscellaneous petition has become infructuous. The reasoning provided is that the Trial Court had already passed a judgment and sentence on 19.12.2015 in criminal proceedings No. 1148/2006, convicting the accused and sentencing them to simple imprisonment for two years. Subsequently, an appeal against this conviction was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 16.11.2018. A revision petition against the Appellate Court's order was pending before the High Court. Given these subsequent events and the fact that no proceedings were pending before the Trial Court, the original challenge to the framing of charges in this petition was rendered moot. The ratio decidendi is that a challenge to interlocutory orders like the framing of charges becomes infructuous once a final judgment and sentence have been passed and upheld by appellate forums, even if a further revision is pending. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present criminal miscellaneous petition is infructuous, given that the Trial Court has already passed a judgment and sentence, and the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal against it, with a further revision pending before the High Court. (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that the criminal miscellaneous petition has become infructuous due to the subsequent developments in the case. They contended that since the Trial Court has already passed a final order and the appeals have been decided, the current petition challenging the framing of charges is no longer maintainable. Respondent's Argument: The respondent (Union of India and State of Rajasthan) did not present any specific arguments in the judgment. The judgment notes that the Trial Court's order and the Appellate Court's order dismissing the appeal have been passed, and a revision against the Appellate Court's order is pending. The Superintendent (Legal) CGST-Alwer was present for the respondent.