SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 27 May, 2019

ReservedJudgment

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFUTTARAKHANDATNAINITAL

CriminalRevisionNo.108of2016

RajeshKumar…….Revisionist
versus
StateofUttarakhandanother…….Respondents

Mr.RajendraSinghAzad,Advocatefortherevisionist.
Mr.P.S.Bohara,A.G.A.withMs.ShivangiGangwar,BriefHolderforthe
respondentState.

Chronologicallistofcasesreferred:

1.AIR2013SC52,SectionShorajSinghAhlawatvsStateofU.P.
2.(2010)7SCC667,SectionPreetiGuptavsStateofJharkhand
3.(2010)9SCC368,SectionSajjanKumarvsCBI
4.(2009)14SCC466,SectionShaksonBelthissorvsStateofKerala
5.(2009)6SCC364,SectionRumiDhar(Smt.)vsStateofW.B.
6.(2008)2SCC561,SectionOnkarNathMishravsState(NCTofDelhi)
7.(2005)1SCC568,SectionStateofOrissavsDebendraNathPandhi
8.(1979)3SCC4,SectionUnionofIndiavsPrafullaKumarSamal
9.AIR2009SC887,SectionPalwinderSinghvsBalwinderSingh
10.2000Cri.LJ3504,SectionStateofM.P.vs.MohanlalSoni
11.1996Cri.LJ2448,SectionStateofMaharashtravsSomNathThapa
12.1977Cri.LJ1125,StateofKarnatakavsL.Muniswamy

Per:Hon’bleLokPalSingh,J.

Thiscriminalrevisionisdirectedagainst
theorderdated14.12.2015,passedbylearned
Addl.ChiefJudicialMagistrate,Roorkee,District
Haridwar,inCriminalcaseno.1550of2014(old
no.2699of2012),SectionStatevsRajeshKumar,whereby
theapplicationmovedbytherevisionistunder
Section239ofCr.P.C.wasrejectedbythesaid
courtandchargeinrespectoftheoffence
punishableunderSection3/Section7oftheEssential
CommoditiesActhasbeenframedagainstthe
revisionist.

2)Prosecutionstory,inbrief,isthat
complainant/respondentno.2lodgedanFIR
2

againsttherevisioniston05.05.2009,at14:00
P.M.,atpoliceStation,Bhagwanpur,District
Haridwar,statingtherein,thathereceived
informationfromaninformerthatillegalbusinessof
sellingdieselisgoingoninvillageHallumajra.On
thisinformation,complainantalongwithpolice
personnelreachedVillageHallumajraon
05.05.2009,at06:10A.M.,attheresidenceofthe
revisionistandconductedraidat09:30A.M.,inthe
presenceofSupplyInspector,Roorkee.Onraid
beingconducted,20drumsof200literseachfilled
withdieseloil,20emptydrums,measuringarticles
andpumpwererecovered.Itisalleged,thatthe
revisionistfailedtoshowanylicenseforstoringand
sellingthedieseloil.Theraidingpartyseizedallthe
incriminatingarticlesandpreparedmemointhis
regardonthespot.

3)Onthebasisofallegedrecoverymemo,
casecrimeno.88of2009,underSection3/Section7of
EssentialCommoditiesAct(forbrevityhereinafter
referredastheAct)wasregisteredagainstthe
revisionistatP.S.Bhagwanpur,DistrictHaridwar.
Aftercompletionofinvestigation,theInvestigating
Officerfiledchargesheetagainsttherevisionistfor
theselfsameoffence.LearnedMagistratetook
cognizanceagainsttherevisionistinrespectof
selfsameoffence,videimpugnedorderdated
06.06.2012.

4)Feelingaggrievedagainstfilingofcharge
sheetandcognizanceorder,therevisionist
approachedthisCourtbywayoffilingCriminal
Misc.Application(C-482)no.366of2014,SectionRajesh
3

KumarvsStateofUttarakhandandanother.This
Courtwaspleasedtopassaninterimorderdated
24.04.2014infavouroftheapplicant(present
revisionist).Thereafter,theC-482petitionstands
disposedofvideorderdated03.11.2015withliberty
totheapplicanttomoveanapplicationfor
dischargeatthetimeofframingofchargebeforethe
trialcourt.Incomplianceofsaidorder,revisionist
movedanapplicationunderSection239ofCr.P.C.
beforethetrialcourtseekinghisdischarge.
Learnedtrialcourthavingheardthesubmissionsof
learnedcounselfortheparties,rejectedthesame
videimpugnedorderdated14.12.2015andframed
chargeinrespectofoffencepunishableunder
Section3/Section7oftheAct.Hence,presentcriminal
revision.

5)Ihaveheardlearnedcounselforthe
partiesandperusedtheentirerecord.

6)AperusaloftheFIRandthechargesheet

wouldrevealthat4000litersofhighspeeddiesel
wasfoundinthepossessionofrevisionist.
Undisputedly,therevisionistishavingvalidlicense,
beingno.HRH/06/2005grantedbytheDistrict
Authority/DistrictSupplyOfficer,Haridwarinhis
favour.Thesaidlicensewasrenewedfromtimeto
timeandwasstillvalidonthedateraidwas
conductedattheresidenceoftherevisionist.Ithas
beenallegedintheFIRthattherevisionistcouldnot
showvalidlicenseoranyotherdocumentinregard
tostorage/sellingofthedieselattherelevantpoint
oftime.Thereisnodenialbytheprosecutionthat
4

thesaidlicensegrantedforselling4000litersof
highspeeddieselwasnotgrantedtotherevisionist.
Fromtheveryinceptiontherevisionistisharpingon
thepointthatthereisalicenseinhisfavourissued
bythecompetentauthorityandhepurchasedthe
highspeeddieselfromLaxmiServiceStation,I.O.D.
Bhagwanpurandwhilehewastakingthediesel
fromthedealertothebusinessplaceatvillage
Ibrahimpurhewasforcedtostopinthemidwaydue
notinclementweatherandashisresidenceisin
betweenthetwodestinations,heparkedhistractor-
trolleyathisresidenceinvillageHallumajrainthe
nightof04.05.2009.Onnextdaymorning,i.e.,
05.05.2009,theraidingpartyraidedhisresidence
andallegedlyrecovered20drumsof200literseach
filledwithdieseland20emptydrumsalongwith
somemeasuringarticles.Therevisionistwasnot
foundsellingthehighspeeddieselathisresidence
orattheplaceofrecovery.

7)Onanapplicationfiledbytherevisionist
underSection239ofCr.P.C.,theMagistratedidnot
considerthegroundsraisedbytherevisionistinhis
application.TheMagistrateconcernedhasrecorded
thefindingsthatatthetimeofhearingofdischarge
applicationorframingthecharge,theCourtcannot
considertheevidenceadducedbytheaccused.
Furtherfindinghasbeenrecordedthatprimafacie
satisfactionofthecourtissufficienttoframe
charge.

8)Undisputedly,therevisionistishaving
thevalidlicenseofsellingthehighspeeddiesel.It
5

isthecontentionoflearnedcounselfortheState
thattherevisionistcouldnotshowanylicensein
hisfavour.Itissurprisingthattherevisionist,who
hadavalidlicenseissuedbytheLicensing
Authority,wouldnotshowthesametotheraiding
party.Ontheotherhand,thecontentionoflearned
counselfortherevisionististhatlicensewasshown
totheraidingpartyandthereafteracopywas
providedtotheI.O.,buttheI.O.didnotplacethe
sameonrecordforthereasonsbestknowntohim.

9)LearnedMagistratehasrejectedthe
applicationfordischarge,butnoreasonhasbeen
assignedfordoingsointheimpugnedorder.A
perusalofthematerialavailableonrecordwould
showthattherevisionistwasinpossessionof4000
litersofhighspeeddieselforwhichavalidlicense
hasbeengrantedtohim.Saidfacthasnotbeen
consideredbythelearnedMagistrate.Whatlearned
Magistratehasobservedisthattheevidenceledby
theaccusedcannotbeconsideredatthisstageand
itcanonlyconsiderthematerialproducedbythe
prosecution.Learnedtrialcourtplacingreliance
uponthedecisionrenderedbyHon’bleApexCourt
inDebendraNathPadhi7hasheldthatthisaspectof
thematterwasdealtwithbyHon’bleSupreme
Courtholdingthatatthetimeofframingchargeor
takingcognizancetheaccusedhasnorightto
produceanymaterial.Reliancewasalsoplacedon
thejudgmentpassedinthecaseofPalwinder
Singh9,whereintheirLordshipsofHon’bleApex
Courthaveheldthatchargescanbeframedalsoon
thebasisofstrongsuspicion.Placingrelianceupon
6

thejudgments(supra),theMagistrateconcerned
hasrejectedtheapplicationbyimpugnedorder
dated14.12.2015andframedthechargeofoffence
punishableunderSection3/Section7oftheEssential
CommoditiesActagainsttherevisionist.

10)Sofarastheratioofthejudgments
(supra)isconcerned,thereisnotquarrelonthis
pointthatdefenceevidenceshouldbetakenafter
theprosecutionevidenceisconcluded.But,thereis
acaveattoit.Whenanaccusedproduces
unimpeachableevidenceinsupportofhisdefenceat
thetimeofframingofchargeorhearingonthe
dischargeapplication,thecourtshouldconsiderit
atthatstageandtheaccusedshouldbedischarged
ifthechargeisfoundgroundless.Thecourtshould
notwaittilltheprosecutionevidenceisconcluded,
otherwise,itwouldleadtounnecessarytrialagainst
theaccusedwhichwouldresultinwastingvaluable
timeandmoneyofthelitigantaswellasthe
valuabletimeofthecourt.

11)Inthepresentcase,thereisanadmitted
casethattherevisionistishavingthereasonsto
retail4000litersofdiesel,forwhichlicensewas
grantedtohim,andnotasingleliterofexcess
dieselwasfoundfromhispossessionandonlyon
thepretextthat20drumsofthecapacityof200
litersofdieseleachand20emptydrums,keep,
pumpandmeasuringequipmentsof5literand1
literrespectivelywererecoveredfromtherevisionist,
itisdifficulttopresumethattherevisionistis
involvedintheillegalbusinessofsellingdiesel.As
7

such,inviewofthisCourt,thematerialproducedis
notsufficientforproceedingsagainsttherevisionist.

12)TheHon’bleSupremeCourtinShoraj
SinghAhlawat1whilerelyinguponvarious

decisionsonsaidaspecthasobservedasunder:

“8.Onbehalfoftheappellantitwasarguedontheauthority
ofthedecisionsofthisCourtinPreetiGupta2,Prafulla
KumarSamal8,SajjanKumar3,DebendraNathPandhi7,
OnkarNathMishra6,ShaksonBelthissor4,andRumiDhar
(Smt.)5,thatwhileconsideringanapplicationfordischarge
theCourtcanexaminetheevidenceonrecordanddischarge
theaccusedpersonsifthereisnopossibilityoftheaccused
beingfoundguiltyonthebasisofsuchevidencespeciallyin
caseswheretheaccusedproducesunimpeachableevidencein
supportofhisdefence.Itwasalsocontendedthatwhile
examiningwhethertheCourtshouldorshouldnotdischarge
theaccused,itmustberemembered,thatSection498-Aofthe
IPCisamuchabusedprovisionandthatexaggerated
versionsofsmallincidentsareoftenresentedtofalsely
implicate,harassandhumiliatethehusbandandhisrelatives.

Applyingtheprinciplessetoutintheabovedecisionsthe
appellantswere,accordingtoMs.GeetaLuthra,learned
counselappearingforthem,entitledtoadischargenotonly
becausetherewasaninordinatedelayinthefilingofthe
complaintbyrespondentNo.1butalsobecausethestatements
madeunderSection161Cr.P.C.bythewitnesseswhowere
eitherplantedormerelychancewitnesseswerecontradictory
innature.ItwasarguedthattwoInvestigatingOfficers
havinginvestigatedthematterandfoundtheallegationstobe
false,therewasnoreasonfortheCourttobelievethestory
setupbythewifewhohadsufferedadecreefordivorcein
regardtowhichshehadwrittentotheArmyAuthoritiesa
letterdated2ndOctober,2006statingthatshewasnot
pursuingthematterinanyCourt.AppellantNo.3-Naveen
Ahlawathavinggotre-marriedon30thOctober,2006the
8

incidentreferredinthecomplaintwasafabricationwhich
aspecttheCourtsbelowhadfailedtoconsiderthusfailingto
protecttheappellantsagainstharassmentandtheignominy
ofacriminaltrial.

9.OnbehalfofrespondentNo.2,itwaspercontraargued
thatherhusbandhadfiledadivorcepetitionagainstherin
theFamilyCourt,MeerutshowingrespondentNo.2tobe
residingwithherparentsat327,PrabhatNagar,Meerut,
whereasshewasactuallyresidingwiththeappellantsalong
withherdaughteratNo.9,TigrisRoad,DelhiCantt,Delhi.It
wasfurtherarguedthatappellantNo.3hadobtainedanex
partedecreeorderofdivorcebyfraudulentmeansandby
forgingsignaturesofrespondentNo.2,acknowledgingreceipt
ofthenoticewhichshehadneverreceivedfromthe
concernedCourt.Thiswasconclusivelyestablishedbythe
factthattheexpartedecreedated31stMay,2006hadbeen
eventuallysetasidebytheCourtintermsoforderdated28th
July,2007.Allegationsregardingphysicaltortureof
respondentNo.2andherbeingabandonedontheroadonthe
dateofincidentinquestionasalsotheallegationabout
dowryharassmentwerefactuallycorrectandmadeouta
clearcaseforprosecutingtheappellants.AppellantNo.3had,
accordingtothecounselfortherespondent,marriedone
Adition30thOctober,2006.Itwasalsoarguedthatletter
referredtobyappellantNo.3asalsoletterdated2nd
November,2006allegedlywrittenbyrespondentNo.2were
forgeriescommittedbytheappellants.ThetrialCourtwas,in
thelightoftheavailablematerial,justifiedinrefusingto
dischargetheaccusedpersonsandthatthegroundsfor
dischargesetupbytheappellantscouldbeexaminedonly
afterthecasehadgonethroughfull-fledgedtrial.Reliance
wasplaceduponadecisionofthisCourtinPrafullaKumar
Samala8.

10.Thecaseathandbeingawarrantcaseisgovernedby
Section239oftheCr.P.C.forpurposesofdetermining
9

whethertheaccusedoranyoneofthemdeservedtobe
discharged.Section239isasunder:

“239.Whenaccusedshallbedischarged.

If,uponconsideringthepolicereportandthe
documentssentwithitunderSectionsection173andmakingsuch
examination,ifany,oftheaccusedastheMagistratethinks
necessaryandaftergivingtheprosecutionandtheaccused
anopportunityofbeingheard,theMagistrateconsidersthe
chargeagainsttheaccusedtobegroundless,heshall
dischargetheaccused,andrecordhisreasonsforsodoing.”

11.AplainreadingoftheabovewouldshowthattheCourt
tryingthecasecandirectdischargeonlyforreasonstobe
recordedbyitandonlyifitconsidersthechargeagainstthe
accusedtobegroundless.Section240oftheCodeprovides
forframingofachargeif,uponconsiderationofthepolice
reportandthedocumentssenttherewithandmakingsuch
examination,ifany,oftheaccusedastheMagistratethinks
necessary,theMagistrateisoftheopinionthatthereis
groundforpresumingthattheaccusedhascommittedan
offencetriableunderChapterXIX,whichsuchMagistrateis
competenttotryandwhichcanbeadequatelypunishedby
him.TheambitofSection239Cr.P.C.andtheapproachtobe
adoptedbytheCourtwhileexercisingthepowersvestedinit
underthesaidprovisionfellforconsiderationofthisCourtin
OnkarNathMishra6.Thattoowasacaseinwhicha
complaintunderSections498-AandSection406readwithSection34
oftheI.P.C.wasfiledagainstthehusbandandparentsin-law
ofthecomplainant-wife.TheMagistratehadinthatcase
dischargedtheaccusedunderSection239oftheCr.P.C,
holdingthatthechargewasgroundless.Thecomplainant
questionedthatorderbeforetheRevisionalCourtwhich
directedthetrialCourttoframechargesagainsttheaccused
persons.TheHighCourthavingaffirmedthatorder,the
matterwasbroughtuptothisCourt.ThisCourtpartly
allowedtheappealquatheparents-in-lawwhiledismissing
thesamequathehusband.ThisCourtexplainedthelegal
10

positionandtheapproachtobeadoptedbytheCourtatthe
stageofframingofchargesordirectingdischargeinthe
followingwords:

“11.Itistritethatatthestageofframingofchargethecourt
isrequiredtoevaluatethematerialanddocumentsonrecord
withaviewtofindingoutifthefactsemergingtherefrom,
takenattheirfacevalue,disclosedtheexistenceofallthe
ingredientsconstitutingtheallegedoffence.Atthatstage,the
courtisnotexpectedtogodeepintotheprobativevalueof
thematerialonrecord.Whatneedstobeconsideredis
whetherthereisagroundforpresumingthattheoffencehas
beencommittedandnotagroundforconvictingtheaccused
hasbeenmadeout.Atthatstage,evenstrongsuspicion
foundedonmaterialwhichleadsthecourttoforma
presumptiveopinionastotheexistenceofthefactual
ingredientsconstitutingtheoffenceallegedwouldjustifythe
framingofchargeagainsttheaccusedinrespectofthe
commissionofthatoffence.”

(emphasissupplied)

12.SupportfortheaboveviewwasdrawnbythisCourtfrom
earlierdecisionsrenderedinL.Muniswamy12,SomNath
Thapa11andMohanlalSoni10
.InSomNathThapa11the
legalpositionwassummedupasunder:

“ifonthebasisofmaterialsonrecord,acourtcould
cometotheconclusionthatcommissionoftheoffenceisa
probableconsequence,acaseforframingofchargeexists.To
putitdifferently,ifthecourtweretothinkthattheaccused
mighthavecommittedtheoffenceitcanframethecharge,
thoughforconvictiontheconclusionisrequiredtobethatthe
accusedhascommittedtheoffence.Itisapparentthatatthe
stageofframingofacharge,probativevalueofthematerials
onrecordcannotbegoneinto;thematerialsbroughton
recordbytheprosecutionhastobeacceptedastrueatthat
stage.”

(emphasissupplied)
11

13.SoalsoinMohanlal’scase(supra)thisCourtreferredto
severalpreviousdecisionsandheldthatthejudicialopinion
regardingtheapproachtobeadoptedforframingofcharge
isthatsuchchargesshouldbeframediftheCourtprimafacie
findsthatthereissufficientgroundforproceedingagainstthe
accused.TheCourtisnotrequiredtoappreciateevidenceas
iftodeterminewhetherthematerialproducedwassufficient
toconvicttheaccused.Thefollowingpassagefromthe
decisioninMohanlal’scase(supra)isinthisregard
apposite:

“8.Thecrystallizedjudicialviewisthatatthestageof
framingcharge,thecourthastoprimafacieconsider
whetherthereissufficientgroundforproceedingagainstthe
accused.Thecourtisnotrequiredtoappreciateevidenceto
concludewhetherthematerialsproducedaresufficientornot
forconvictingtheaccused.”

14.InDebendraNathPandhi7,thisCourtwasconsidering
whetherthetrialCourtcanatthetimeofframingofcharges
considermaterialfiledbytheaccused.Thequestionwas
answeredinthenegativebythisCourtinthefollowing
words:

“18.Weareunabletoaccepttheaforesaidcontention.The
relianceonArticles14and21ismisplaced……Further,at
thestageofframingofchargerovingandfishinginquiryis
impermissible.Ifthecontentionoftheaccusedisaccepted,
therewouldbeamini-trialatthestageofframingofcharge.
ThatwoulddefeattheobjectSectionoftheCode.Itiswell-settled
thatatthestageofframingofchargethedefenceofthe
accusedcannotbeputforth.Theacceptanceofthecontention
ofthelearnedcounselfortheaccusedwouldmeanpermitting
theaccusedtoadducehisdefenceatthestageofframingof
chargeandforexaminationthereofatthatstagewhichis
againstthecriminaljurisprudence.Bywayofillustration,it
maybenotedthatthepleaofalibitakenbytheaccusedmay
havetobeexaminedatthestageofframingofchargeifthe
contentionoftheaccusedisaccepteddespitethewellsettled
12

propositionthatitisfortheaccusedtoleadevidenceatthe
trialtosustainsuchaplea.Theaccusedwouldbeentitledto
producematerialsanddocumentsinproofofsuchapleaat
thestageofframingofthecharge,incaseweacceptthe
contentionputforthonbehalfoftheaccused.Thathasnever
beentheintentionofthelawwellsettledforoveronehundred
yearsnow.Itisinthislightthattheprovisionabouthearing
thesubmissionsoftheaccusedaspostulatedbySection227is
tobeunderstood.Itonlymeanshearingthesubmissionsof
theaccusedontherecordofthecaseasfiledbythe
prosecutionanddocumentssubmittedtherewithandnothing
more.Theexpression’hearingthesubmissionsoftheaccused’
cannotmeanopportunitytofilematerialtobegrantedtothe
accusedandtherebychangingthesettledlaw.Atthestateof
framingofchargehearingthesubmissionsoftheaccusedhas
tobeconfinedtothematerialproducedbythepolice………

xxxxxxxx

23.Asaresultofaforesaiddiscussion,inourview,clearly
thelawisthatatthetimeofframingchargeortaking
cognizancetheaccusedhasnorighttoproduceany
material…”

(emphasissupplied)

15.EveninSmt.RumiDhar5,reliancewhereuponwas
placedbycounselfortheappellantstheteststobeappliedat
thestageofdischargeoftheaccusedpersonunderSection
239oftheCr.P.C.,werefoundtobenodifferent.Farfrom
readilyencouragingdischarge,theCourtheldthatevena
strongsuspicioninregardtothecommissionoftheoffence
wouldbesufficienttojustifyframingofcharges.TheCourt
observed:

“…Whileconsideringanapplicationfordischargefiledin
termsofSection239oftheCode,itwasforthelearnedJudge
togointothedetailsoftheallegationsmadeagainsteachof
theaccusedpersonssoastoformanopinionastowhether
anycaseatallhasbeenmadeoutornotasastrongsuspicion
inregardtheretoshallsubservetherequirementsoflaw…

13

16.TothesameeffectisthedecisionofthisCourtinPrafulla
KumarSamal8,wherethisCourtwasexaminingasimilar
questioninthecontextofSection227oftheCodeofCriminal
Procedure.Thelegalpositionwassummedupasunder:
“10.Thus,onaconsiderationoftheauthoritiesmentioned
above,thefollowingprinciplesemerge:

(1)ThattheJudgewhileconsideringthequestionof
framingthechargesunderSection227oftheCodehas
theundoubtedpowertoshiftandweightheevidence
forthelimitedpurposeoffindingoutwhetherornota
primafaciecaseagainsttheaccusedhasbeenmade
out:

(2)WherethematerialsplacedbeforetheCourt
disclosegravesuspicionagainsttheaccusedwhich
hasnotbeenproperlyexplainedtheCourtwillbefully
justifiedinframingachargeandproceedingwiththe
trial.

(3)Thetesttodetermineaprimafaciecasewould
naturallydependuponthefactsofeachcaseanditis
difficulttolaydownaruleofuniversalapplication.By
andlargehoweveriftwoviewsareequallypossible
andtheJudgeissatisfiedthattheevidenceproduced
beforehimwhilegivingrisetosomesuspicionbutnot
gravesuspicionagainsttheaccused,hewillbefully
withinhisrighttodischargetheaccused.
(4)ThatinexercisinghisjurisdictionunderSection
227oftheCodetheJudgewhichunderthepresent
CodeisaseniorandexperiencedJudgecannotact
merelyasaPostOfficeoramouth-pieceofthe
prosecution,buthastoconsiderthebroad
probabilitiesofthecase,thetotaleffectoftheevidence
andthedocumentsproducedbeforetheCourt,any
basicinfirmitiesappearinginthecaseandsoon.This
howeverdoesnotmeanthattheJudgeshouldmakea
rovingenquiryintotheprosandconsofthematter
14

andweightheevidenceasifhewasconductinga
trial.”

13)Itistheparamountdutyofthecourtto
considertheprosecutionanddefencecaseatpar.
Thecourtneedstoconsideratthatstagewhether
thereisagroundforpresumingthattheoffencehas
beencommittedbyanaccusedandifthereisa
reasonabledoubtinthemindoftheJudgehearing
thecriminalmatterthatthecriminalcasemaynot
leadtoconvictionoftheaccusedandcontinuanceof
thetrialwouldbeafutileexercise,theaccused
shouldbedischarged.TheLegislatureinits
wisdomhasmadetheprovisionsofdischarge.Soin
appropriatecaseswherethecourtisprimafacieof
theopinionthatthematerialsproducedare
insufficientforconvictingtheaccused,insteadof
framingchargeagainstanaccusedwhichwould
leadtounnecessarycontinuanceoftrialandwould
ultimatelyresultinacquittaloftheaccused,the
Magistrateshouldapplyitsjudicialmindina
rationalewayafterappreciatingmaterialevidencein
theformofdocumentaryororalevidencecollected
bytheprosecution.Similarly,thecourtshouldnot
ignoretheunimpeachableevidenceadducedby
accusedatthetimeofhearingonthedischarge
application.Thetrialcourtatthetimeofhearing
ondischargeapplicationorframingofthecharge
shouldnotactmerelyasaPostOffice,buthasto
applyitsjudicialmindandshouldconsiderthetotal
effectoftheevidenceandthedocumentsproduced
beforehim.ThetrialJudgeatthesametimeisnot
supposedtoworkasamouthpieceofthe
prosecutionandshouldnotcontinuewiththetrial
15

onunfoundedallegationsoronunreliableevidence.
Primafaciecaseisasinequanontoproceedwith
thetrial.

14)Havingheardlearnedcounselforthe
parties,Iamoftheopinionthatthelearnedtrial
courtcommittedanerrorinpassingtheimpugned
order,insofarasitenteredintotherealmof
appreciationofevidenceonlyonmeresuspicion
thatthediesel,includingotherarticles,recovered
fromtherevisionist(asmentionedintheforegoing
paragraphofthejudgment)fromtheplaceforwhich
hehadnolicensetosellthedieselwasunusual.
Learnedtrialcourthascompletelyfailedtoconsider
thecompellingcircumstanceswhichcompelledthe
revisionisttoparkhistractor-trolleyinhisvillage,
whichhappenstobeonthewaytotheplacewhere
thedieselissupposedtobesold.Intheopinionof
thisCourt,merelyonthebasisofsuspicionthatthe
revisionisthadtheintentiontosellthediesel
recoveredfromhimataplaceforwhichlicensewas
grantedtohimcannotbesaidtobestrongevidence.
Assuch,thecourtbelowhaserredinlawinframing
thechargeagainsttherevisionist.

15)Inthisviewofthematter,thisCourtisof
theconsideredopinionthatwhenunimpeachable
evidenceofpossessingavalidlicensewasproduced
bytherevisionistatthetimeofhearingofthe
dischargeapplication,thesameoughttohavebeen
acceptedasevidenceindefencebythetrialJudge.
Accordingly,theimpugnedorderisunsustainable
andisliabletobesetaside.Thecriminalrevisionis
16

allowed.Theimpugnedorderdated14.12.2015is
herebysetaside.

16)Consequently,theentireproceedingsof
criminalcaseno.1550of2014(oldno.2699of
2012),SectionStatevsRajeshKumar,underSection3/Section7of
theEssentialCommoditiesAct,pendinginthecourt
ofAddl.ChiefJudicialMagistrate,Roorkee,District
Haridwarareherebydropped.Therevisionistis
dischargedofthechargeofoffencepunishable
underSection3/Section7oftheEssentialCommodities
Act.

17)Letacopyofthisjudgmentbesenttothe
trialcourtforthwithforcompliance.

(LokPalSingh,J.)

Dt.May27,2019.

Negi

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation