The main legal point established is that the existence of strong suspicion, based on material such as witness statements, is sufficient to warrant a trial. Additionally, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the existence of the contravened order under the Essential Commodities Act during the trial.

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT B. DEO, J.

1. The petitioners are allegedly partners of Khandre Trading Corporation which firm is an agent of Hindustan Petroleum (HP).

2. Mr. Vijaykumar Chavhan, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gadchandur received secret information that Gopal Malpani is illegally holding gas cylinders and is indulging in black marketing. Mr. Vijaykumar Chavhan directed Mr. Khan, Assistant Police Inspector attached with Police Station Gadchandur, to raid the business premises of Gopal Malpani.

3. Mr. Khan, alongwith panchas raided Malpani’s business establishment which was located in a building situated in Ward 4, Gadchandur, on the ground floor. The residential premises of Gopal Malpani was situated on the first floor of the said building.

4. Gopal Malpani’s shop was searched. Inter-alia, 39 domestic gas cylinders of HP, 28 empty domestic gas cylinders of HP, 4 commercial gas cylinders of HP, one empty commercial gas cylinder of HP and 10 empty gas cylinders of the smaller size of HP were found stored in the said shop. The rest of the articles were of the Indane Company, with which the petitioners are not concerned.

5. The Gadchandur police registered offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (‘EC Act’ for short) and Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The investigating agency arraigned Gopal Malpani, the petitioners herein and Ashok Kulmethe, the proprietor of Ballarshah Indane Gan Agency as accused. Culmination of investigation resulted in submission of final report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘Code’ for short).

7. The petitioners herein preferred an application seeking discharge (Exhibit 195 on the record of the trial Court). Discharge was sought on the premise that the only incriminating material in the charge-sheet is the statement of co-accused Gopal Malpani recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is inadmissible. In essence, the contention in support of the discharge application was that even if the entire material in the charge-sheet is holistically considered, there is no admissible incriminatory material as would warrant a trial.

8. The learned Magistrate rejected the application seeking discharge, vide order dated 28-12-2017.

9. The petitioners preferred Criminal Revision 17/2018 reiterating that there was no material in the charge-sheet as would warrant a trial and that the charge is groundless. An additional ground, which was not raised before the learned Magistrate, was that neither the charge-sheet nor the order of the learned Magistrate reveals contravention of any particular order.

10. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision vide judgment dated 15-3-2019.

11. The learned Sessions Judge noted that 151 commercial and domestic gas cylinders were seized from accused Gopal Malpani. The learned Sessions Judge further noted that the material in the chargesheet disclosed that the petitioners are dealer/supplier who hold the statutory licence and supply gas cylinders to approximately 2000 consumers residing in or in the vicinity of Gadchandur. The learned Sessions Judge further noted that prima facie accused Gopal Malpani sourced the cylinders from the petitioners.

12. Dissatisfied by the order of the learned Magistrate of rejecting the discharge application and the revisional order, the petitioners are invoking this Court’s extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.

13. Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the only incriminatory material in the charge-sheet is the confessional statement of co-accused Gopal Malpani which is not admissible and, therefore, the charge is groundless. The other submission is that since there is no reference to any particular order promulgated under the EC Act in the first information report, nor is there any material disclosed in the charge-sheet indicating the particular order