IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
Karansinh Kalusinh Rathod – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
R/Criminal Misc.Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) NO. 19324 of 2017
Decided on : 12-04-2024
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure - Essential Commodities Act 1995, Section 3 and 7 - The court discussed the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings against the applicant. The court analyzed the facts, the findings of the lower courts, and the legal principles to conclude that continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant would be an exercise in futility. The court exercised inherent powers and quashed the proceedings against the applicant accused.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a former Godown Manager, sought to quash the criminal proceedings against him under the Essential Commodities Act, 1995.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant would be an exercise in futility, as the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the applicant accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the charges levelled against the applicant accused under the Essential Commodities Act, 1995, could be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles established in various judgments to determine that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant would be an exercise in futility, as the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the applicant accused.
Final Decision: The court exercised inherent powers and quashed the proceedings against the applicant accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of preferring this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for the following relief/s:
B. Your Lordship may be pleased to call for the records and case papers of Cri. Case No. 1987 of 2011 pending before the Learned J.M.F.C. Zalod and Records of Cri. Revision No. 42 of 2016 from the Sessions Judge of Dahod and further Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quashed and set aside order passed by the Learned J.M.F.C. Zalod below Ex.17 dated 28/11/2016 in Criminal Case No. 1987 of 2011 and order passed by Addl. Sessions Judge of Dahod in Cri. Revision Application No. 42 of 2016 dated 13/06/2017 and further be pleased to quash and set aside the said F.I.R No. II 37 of 2011 registered before the Zalod Police Station and Charge sheet dated 29/10/2011 and proceedings carried out in Cri. Case No. 1987 of 2011 pending before the Court of J.M.F.C. Zalod and may further be pleased to quash and set aside all proceedings carried out in respect of the said F.I.R. No. II 37 of 2011 in the end of justice.
C. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant the ad interim relief by staying the further proceedings in respect of the said Charge Sheet being Criminal Case No. 1987 of 2011 pending in the Court of Learned J.M.F.C. Zalod till the final order of this application.
D. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further relief that may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. The facts as narrated in the memo of the application, can be summarized in nutshell as under:
2.1. That the petitioner had been serving in the Department of Gujarat State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. on the Post of Godown Manager and has retired from the service on 31.08.2015.
2.2. That the petitioner served at Zalod Godown, Gujarat State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. Zalod, on the post of Godown Manager from 06/06/2008 to 14/07/2010.
2.3. That the duties of the petitioner was of general supervising over the Godown.
2.4. That in order to assist the Godown Manager, staff of two Assistant Godown Managers, one Mr. K.K.Katara and another Mr. V.D. Dhamlat and other staffs were also serving at said Zalod Godown.
2.5. That the Asst. Godown Manager was allotted the duties of maintenance of "H" Registers, and other registers, as mentioned in the job cards.
2.6. That for proper functioning and maintaining of civil supply commodities to fair price shops, Officers above the Godown Manager also used to visit the Godown and makes remarks of performances of works. The Auditor also use to audit the records of the Godown regularly.
2.7. That from 14/03/2011 to 06/04/2011 a team from Gandhinagar consisting 1. Shri J.B.Ahir Dy. Director, 2. Shri K.G. Muniya Asst. Officer, 3. M.C.Patel Director, 4. Shri K.J.Soni Director officer and Dy. Manager Vigilance Gujarat State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. Ghandhinagar, had inspected and verified the office of the said Zalod Godown of the Government of Gujarat and the Team found some irregularities and violation of Rules of G.R. and instructions with regard to distribution of commodities to Fair Price Shops from the Godown. That on finding alleged irregularities in maintaining registers particularly H-Register and violation of Govt. Resolutions, the Collector, Dahod issued order to lodge F.I.R. against the present petitioner and three other co accused, on the basis of so called reports from the Manager Vigilance and Director of Guj. State Civil Supply Corp. Ltd Gandhinagar. So the complainant Shri Mukeshbhai Navnitlal Sheth, Mamlatdar Supply Dahod, Chakaliya Road Office, Dahod had filed written complaint dated 30/06/2011 before the Police Inspector, Zalod against present petitioner and three other co accused, The Police ultimately has registered the F.I.R. being C.R.No.II-37 of 2011 under Sec. 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1995 on 04/10/2011.
2.8.
Dilawar B Kurane v State of Maharashtra
Dipakbhai Jagdishchndra Patel v. State of Gujarat
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v Jitendra B Bijjaya
Priyanka Mishra v State of Uttar Pradesh
Ramesh Singh (supra), K P Raghavan v M H Abbas
Rumi Dhar v State of West Bengal
State of Tamil Nadu v N Suresh Rajan
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa and others
State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath
Sajjan Kumar v. CBI [(2010) 9 SCC 368 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371]
State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v Dilip N Chordia
Sajjan Kumar v Central Bureau of Investigation
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa
State (NCT of Delhi) v Shiv Charan Bansal
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another
V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. reported in1980 Supp SCC 92: 1980 SCC (Cri) 695
Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Union of India v Prafulla K Samal
Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency
Almohan Das v State of West Bengal
Chitresh K Chopra v State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Criminal breach of trust and forgery by Bank officer – Mere depositing defalcated amount subsequently, does not exonerate accused/petitioner from charge of commission of offence which has been ultima....
At the initial stage, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged, and the accused's defense is not to be looked into when seeking discharge under Section 227 of....
Public servants cannot be prosecuted without necessary sanction under Section 197 of the CPC. The court must evaluate evidence for a prima facie case while deciding discharge applications.
A Magistrate under Section 227 Cr.P.C. must judicially evaluate materials to determine if 'grave suspicion' exists against each accused, rather than acting as a mere conduit for the prosecution, espe....
At the stage of framing charges, the court must evaluate the material and documents on record to determine if the facts disclose all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court has th....
Defective investigation does not preclude prosecution; an accused cannot be discharged solely on this ground if sufficient evidence exists against them.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.