ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The applicant before this Court has invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No.11993004200862 of 2020, dated 08.09.2020, registered with the Bhachau Police Station, Kachchh-East Gandhidham, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 381, 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. The brief facts as narrated in the FIR to the effect that the accused persons have made an attempt to misdirect the Agriculture Urea (an item classified as essential commodity) from where it was required to be delivered (i.e. to the farmers at large) allegedly to the factory of the present applicant to be used for manufacture of plywood and hence, there is an offence under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act alongwith the provisions of IPC.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot for the applicant would submit that the present applicant is one of the Directors of Singhal Plywood Industries Private Limited – a company involved in manufacturing of plywood since its incorporation, having share capital of rupees 4 crores, and paid up capital of rupees 2.5 crores, with a turnover of rupees 30 crores as per the last financial year, namely, 2019. It is further submitted that, the company is involved in large scale production of plywood by using various manufacturing materials, but does not involve in raw material for manufacturing of the plywood, namely, agriculture urea in any of the manufacturing process.

3.1. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that the allegations in the FIR are entirely frivolous and based solely on the statement of the co-accused, and that, the present applicant is arraigned in the present FIR only with the view to harass the applicant and using the FIR as a pressure tactics and to show the misuse of urea recovered from third party and not from the applicant’s premises. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that the truck from which the urea was found was on a different route than as required to be taken delivery to the Mandli, and thus, the stock of urea was to be delivered at a different place. However, the allegations have been mounted to such an extent that the same was to be delivered to the applicant without there being any actual foundational facts, except for the statement of the co-accused. Learned Senior Advocate would also submit that there is no use of urea in the manufacturing of the plywood, and therefore also, the factum of co-accused statement that the applicant was going to receive such urea is baseless, that is nothing but a abuse of process of law, no ingredients of offence as alleged are satisfied.

3.2. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that the bare reading of the FIR does not reveal any material against the present applicant. There is nothing to point out remotely as to any monetary transaction or benefit that the applicant might have gained out of the alleged transaction and has, thus been implicated purely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused extracted during the custodial interrogation, and thus, is hit by the provisions of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, argued to allow the present application.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohan Shah for the State would submit that whether urea is utilized for manufacturing plywood or not is a matter of trial. However, could not disclose the fact that except for the statement of the co-accused, there is no material to rope in the present applicant, and has thus, fairly submitted the factual aspect.

5. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the FIR and also the papers of the investigation carried out till now, it clearly transpires that except for the statement of the co-accused, there is nothing to point out the involvement of the present