IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Anil Kumar Upman, J.
Sher Singh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5609 of 2015
Decided On : 29-02-2024
(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3/7 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners challenged the framing of charges under the Essential Commodities Act and IPC - The trial court's order was found to be non-speaking and lacking proper reasoning - The court emphasized the necessity for a reasoned order when framing charges - Previous judgments were cited to support the need for judicial scrutiny in charge framing. (Paras 7-10)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 - The court reiterated that the judge must assess whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused, emphasizing the need for a reasoned approach. (Paras 7-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR for alleged black-marketing of LPG cylinders, arguing that the trial court's charge framing was erroneous and lacked justification.
Findings of Court:
The court found the trial court's order to be casual and non-speaking, necessitating a fresh reasoned order on charge framing.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court properly justified the framing of charges against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a reasoned order is essential when framing charges, and the trial court must consider all evidence and arguments presented by the accused.
Result: The order framing charge was quashed, and the trial court was directed to issue a fresh reasoned order.
ORDER :
1. By way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR No. 31/2010 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu for offences under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 120B IPC along with all consequential proceedings arising out of it including orders dated 28.04.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu whereby cognizance was taken on 02.01.2014 whereby charges were framed against them for offences under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violating the provisions of The Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000. The order dated 22.09.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in revision No. 54/2014 filed by the petitioners has also been put to challenge in this misc. petition whereby the learned revisional court dismissed the revision and affirmed the order dated 02.01.2014.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 27.02.2010, Rajneesh Punia, Circle Inspector Circle Chirawa lodged a report inter alia alleging that he received a secret information that LPG cylinders pertaining to Vijay Gas Agency were loaded in Pickup vehicle (No. 18 GA 0514) and in collusion with local gas agency of Chirawa, same were going to be sold in black-marketing in Haryana. Acting upon the said information, when he along with other police personnel went there and checked the said vehicle wherein 50 LPG cylinders (HP Gas Company) were found there. During interrogation, the driver Sher Singh and his companion Sunil disclosed that these cylinders were bought by them from a vehicle No. RJ 18 GA 1637 Tata 407 of Virendra and Babulal working for Vijay Gas Agency and they were going to sell them in Haryana. However, they do not have any valid license with them. It was also dislosed by them that the aforesaid Tata-407 vehicle has departed for Surajgarh Chirawa. It was alleged in the report that the said Tata-407 was stopped near Jakhod Railway Crossing. There were two persons namely Babulal and Virendra Kumar found in the truck. They stated that they were the employees of Vijay Gas Agency, Chirawa. There were total 62 empty cylinders lying in the truck. On the basis of this report, the FIR No. 31/2010 was registered at Police Station Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu for offences under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 120B IPC. The accused persons were arrested and investigation commenced in the matter.
3. Shri. A.K. Gupta, Learned senior counsel assisted with Shri. Surabh Pratap Singh and Gaurav Sharma submits that after completion of investigation, on 28.04.2010, the police filed chargesheet before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance in the matter and on 02.01.2014, the learned trial court framed charges against the accused petitioners for offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act to which the accused petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Shri. Gupta, vehement and fervently submits that order framing charge dated 02.01.2014 is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. He submits that said order is totally silent as to on what basis/grounds, the learned trial court framed charges against the petitioners. He contends that the learned trial court ought to have disclose the reasons/grounds before taking framing charge against the petitioners. He thus, submits that the trial court erred of facts as well as law in passing the impugned order dated 02.01.2014. The same has been passed without application of mind. It is submitted that as per the factual report, which is annexed as Annexure-2, it is clear that further investigation of the matter was also conducted by CID (CB), Range Cell Jaipur and after investigation, it was concluded that no offence has been found proved. Apart from that, he contends that Dy. SP, Jhunjhunu, vide communication dated 14.04.2010 sent to District Superintendent of Po
A reasoned order is essential when framing charges under the Essential Commodities Act, ensuring judicial scrutiny of the evidence and arguments presented.
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 prosecut....
The absence of a valid notification/order under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act prohibits prosecution and conviction under section 7, and the continuation of proceedings without such notif....
The necessity of a notification/order under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act for prosecution and subsequent conviction under section 7.
At charge framing, grave suspicion from prosecution material suffices for trial; co-accused s.161 statements supportive not sole basis; multiple FIRs valid for distinct specific incident vs. larger c....
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.