The court emphasized that after filing a charge-sheet, the prosecution must provide substantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, upholding the principle of fair trial.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.20 of 2014 registered with 'D' Division Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offences under Sections 66 (B), 65(A)(E), 116(b), 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Facts of the case are as under :-

2.1. It is alleged in the said FIR that the complainant was performing duties in the night patrolling at 11:00 p.m. on 16/01/2014 along with other police staff. It is further alleged in the aforesaid FIR the complainant received secret information at 1:20 a.m. on 17/01/2014 that unauthorized liquor bottles are being kept in Plot No. 275/C at Chita GIDC area. Upon receiving alleged secret information, the police carried out panchnama for the same at 1:30 a.m. and it lasted till 1:45 a.m. The police carried out raid in the aforesaid plot but nobody was present inside. It is also alleged in the aforesaid FIR that 135 liquor bottles worth Rupees Forty Thousand Five Hundred were found out. Hence, FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.

3. In this petition which is filed after filing of charge-sheet, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that in the charge-sheet in total 7 witnesses are cited, 1st - complainant, 2nd and 3rd - panchs, 4,5,6 are police constable, out of them 6th is PSO and 7th is Investigating Officer. Reading statement of witnesses annexed with FIR, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that nowhere name of the petitioner is surfaced which establish that petitioner is in possession of Plot No.275/C along with accused Rafikbhai Shaikh. Therefore, learned advocate for the petitioner submits to quash the impugned FIR and allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned APP for the respondent - State submits that accused - Rafikbhai Shailk in his confessional statement stated that he and petitioner were jointly in possession of Plot No.275/C, from where Indian made foreign liqour was found during raid. Learned APP submitted that statement of co- accused had given clue and permitted prosecution to file charge- sheet against the petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that petitioner may be tried during trial. On this submissions, he submitted to dismiss the petition.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering facts of the case, argument of learned APP can be accepted, if quashing petition is filed at pre investigation stage, where statement of co-accused may lead prosecution for investigating the offence and it can be relevant piece of evidence. However, after filing of charge-sheet statement of co-accused has no relevance. In investigation, Investigating Officer has to find independent witnesses against petitioner to maintain prosecution. Statement of witness viz. (1) Dashrathsinh Gohil, (2) Mahipalsinh Gohil, (3) Gulamhamadbhai Kothariya nd (4) Bhikubhai Bukera, who are had constables, are produced at Annexure C and they do not name petitioner as possessior of Plot No.275/C from where Indian made foreiqn liqour was found during raid but they stated that accused Rafikbhai Shaikh is in possession of said plot pursuant to rent agreement. Therefore, even if charge-sheet is taken as true and correct, it does not disclose offence against the petitioner. Learned APP failed to point out any other material against the petitioner.

6. In view of above, putting present petitioner in trial would be absurd process.