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 conspiracy.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PARIHAR, J.

1. These two petitions arise out of a common order dated 15.12.2012 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”, in a case arising out of FIR No. 31/2006 registered at Police Station, Peer Mitha, Jammu, for commission of offences under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 RPC. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioners came to be discharged for offences under Sections 467 and 471 RPC, but were directed to be charged for offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 120-B RPC and Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of the order of charge.

2. The principal grounds urged in challenge are that the order impugned is contrary to facts and law; that the petitioners have been falsely implicated; that they have been roped in subsequently only on the basis of statements of co-accused; that there was no legal material before the trial Court to frame charges against them; and that the petitioners have been made accused in relation to what is essentially the same transaction already forming subject matter of another FIR registered by another police station, which, according to them, was not legally permissible.

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the prosecution has failed to place on record any material to show that allotment order No. 1384-87/AD/CAPD/J-100-05 dated 16.05.2006 was prepared by any of them. It is contended that the said allotment order pertains to FIR No. 91/2006 of Police Station, Satwari, and not to the present FIR No. 31/2006 of Police Station, Peer Mitha. It is further submitted that in the list of allotment orders annexed with the charge-sheet in the present case, the aforesaid allotment order dated 16.05.2006 is not specifically reflected as the foundational forged document prepared by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the prosecution has failed to identify with certainty the particular false document attributed to each of them.

4. It is also contended that petitioner Kali Dass, at the relevant time, was serving as Senior Assistant in the CAPD Department; petitioner Swaran Singh was working as Chowkidar; and petitioner Bal Krishan Sharma was functioning as Assistant Director in the said Department. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, mere employment in the CAPD Department cannot be made a basis for fastening criminal liability, unless there is cogent material showing participation in preparation, issuance or use of forged allotment orders. The argument is that no such material has been collected during investigation.

5. The factual matrix, as emerging from the record, is that Police Station, Satwari had registered FIR No. 91/2006 under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 RPC, when it was found that one Gurmeet Singh, licence- holder of a kerosene oil sale outlet, was indulging in black- marketing of kerosene oil meant for public distribution. A raid conducted at his premises resulted in recovery of 600 litres of kerosene oil in three barrels, which, according to the police, was in excess of the allotted quota of 300 litres.

6. During investigation of the said case, it surfaced that the kerosene oil ha