Gulsanvar vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Dharam Veer, J.—By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of the charge sheet submitted in case crime No. 46 of 2006 and the order dated 12.7.2006 passed by A.C.J.M., Roorkee as well as the entire criminal proceedings of criminal case No. 20 of 2006, State v. Gulsanvar, u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the Act).

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the entire material available on file.

Brief facts of the case are that Sri M.P. Mishra, Supply Inspector, Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar lodged a report against the applicant stating therein that on 23.3.2006 a compliant was received on telephone against the applicant, who was a dealer of fair price shop. The investigation of this complaint was conducted by the complainant M.P. Mishra and H.C. Bisht. At 3 PM, during the course of investigation, according to stock register of the applicant and on the physical verification of food/sugar/kerosene oil, 38 Quintals and 76 Kilograms of wheat stock was found short in the shop of the applicant. With these averments, the FIR was got registered on 23.3.2006 at P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar against the applicant. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted by the I.O. against the applicant in the court, on the basis of which, learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, vide his order dated 12.7.2006 took the cognizance of the offence u/s 3/7 of the Act and subsequently the criminal proceedings were initiated against him. Against the said charge sheet, order dated 12.7.2006 and the criminal proceedings, the applicant has preferred this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court.

From a perusal of the contents of the First Information Report and after going through other papers available in file, I am of the view that prima facie a case u/s 3/7 of the Act is made out against the applicant.

Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the First Information Report are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety as well as on the basis of evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation, I am of the view that the charge sheet has rightly been submitted against the applicant and the trial court has accordingly rightly taken the cognizance of the offence against the applicant. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 11.8.2006 stands vacated.