Point of Law: Court is not entitled to embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question, collected during investigation is reliable or not, which is the function of trial court.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. This petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is preferred by four petitioners namely, Shri Pesen Yomcha, Shri Jibon Goswami, Shri Surajit Dutta, Shri Ramadhar Rai, for quashing the Charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. 11/2013, dated 28.08.2013 in Tezu P.S. Case No. 53/2012, under Sections 420/409/34 IPC, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Criminal Proceedings arising there from and pending before the Court of learned District and Session Judge, East Sessions Division, Tezu, being Sessions Case No. 41/L/2015. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Shri Ngurang Pinch and 4 others on 24.11.2012.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:

“On 24.11.2012, Shri Ngurang Pinch and 4 others, who are arraigned as respondent No. 2 to 5 in the present petition, lodged one complaint with the Officer-In-Charge, Tezu Police Station to the effect that Shri Jibon Goswami, Shri Surajit Dutta and Shri Ramadhar Rai of M/s Namsai Lamp Ltd Carriage Contractor of FCI carried PDS items from Tinsukia Godown and the same did not reach Tezu FCI Godown, instead the same were disposed of in Assam and they made entry of Trucks, carrying food items, in the receipt register of FCI Depot Tezu, in connivance with the FCI Depot Incharge, Tezu. It is also stated that at the relevant time i.e. in the month of September 2012, there was road blockade in between Pursuram to Tezu, which shows that reaching of the vehicles carrying food grain and showing the same in the registered book of FCI Depot, Tezu is false. On receipt of the complaint, the Officer-In-Charge, Tezu, registered Tezu P.S. Case No. 58/2012, under Sections 420/409/34 IPC, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and investigated the same. The investigation culminated in the submission of Charge-sheet by police being Charge-sheet No. 11/2013, dated 28.08.2013, under Sections 420/409/34 IPC, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against all the 4 petitioners. In the usual course, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tezu, who had initiated proceeding, being Sessions Case No. 41/L/2015, against the petitioners.”

3. Being highly aggrieved by the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No. 41/L/2015, is preferred the present petition on the following grounds:

(i) That, the Court of Session Judge Tezu is not the Special Court constituted by the State Government under Section 12A of the Essential Commodity Act.

(ii) That, the initiation of Criminal proceeding in respect of petitioner No. 1 is illegal as no prosecution sanction is granted under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 15A of the Essential Commodity Act, 1955, as he is an employee of the State Government serving under the Director of the Health Service Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and serving as the Depot In-charge of FCI Tezu on deputation.

(iii) That, the witnesses examine by the Investigating Officer has not supported the prosecution version and besides, the Investigating Officer has taken signatures of the witnesses in the said statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and as such entire charge sheet and the Criminal Proceeding is liable to be set aside and quashed.

4. The respondent No. 2 to 5 has submitted their affidavit-in-opposition, denying the averment made in the petition. It is stated that a clear case is made out against the petitioners from the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer and that the question of prosecution sanction, in respect of petitioner No. 1 is not required, as he had not done the same in discharge of his official duties. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

5. I have heard learned Advocates of both sides, Mr. C.W. Mantaw, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below has taken cogniz