The court emphasized that valid evidence presented by the accused must be considered when determining whether to frame charges, affirming the principle that suspicions alone are insufficient for prosecution.

This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 14.12.2015, passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Criminal case no. 1550 of 2014 (old no. 2699 of 2012), State vs Rajesh Kumar, whereby the application moved by the revisionist under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. was rejected by the said court and charge in respect of the offence punishable under Section 3 /7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been framed against the revisionist.

2) Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant / respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR against the revisionist on 05.05.2009, at 14:00 P.M., at police Station, Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, stating therein, that he received information from an informer that illegal business of selling diesel is going on in village Hallumajra. On this information, complainant along with police personnel reached Village Hallumajra on 05.05.2009, at 06:10 A.M., at the residence of the revisionist and conducted raid at 09:30 A.M., in the presence of Supply Inspector, Roorkee. On raid being conducted, 20 drums of 200 liters each filled with diesel oil, 20 empty drums, measuring articles and pump were recovered. It is alleged, that the revisionist failed to show any license for storing and selling the diesel oil. The raiding party seized all the incriminating articles and prepared memo in this regard on the spot.

3) On the basis of alleged recovery memo, case crime no. 88 of 2009, under Section 3 /7 of Essential Commodities Act (for brevity hereinafter referred as the Act) was registered against the revisionist at P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the revisionist for the selfsame offence. Learned Magistrate took cognizance against the revisionist in respect of selfsame offence, vide impugned order dated 06.06.2012.

4) Feeling aggrieved against filing of charge sheet and cognizance order, the revisionist approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) no. 366 of 2014, Rajesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand and another. This Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 24.04.2014 in favour of the applicant (present revisionist). Thereafter, the C-482 petition stands disposed of vide order dated 03.11.2015 with liberty to the applicant to move an application for discharge at the time of framing of charge before the trial court. In compliance of said order, revisionist moved an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court seeking his discharge. Learned trial court having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, rejected the same vide impugned order dated 14.12.2015 and framed charge in respect of offence punishable under Section 3 /7 of the Act. Hence, present criminal revision.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

6) A perusal of the FIR and the charge sheet would reveal that 4000 liters of high speed diesel was found in the possession of revisionist. Undisputedly, the revisionist is having valid license, being no. HRH/06/2005 granted by the District Authority / District Supply Officer, Haridwar in his favour. The said license was renewed from time to time and was still valid on the date raid was conducted at the residence of the revisionist. It has been alleged in the FIR that the revisionist could not show valid license or any other document in regard to storage / selling of the diesel at the relevant point of time. There is no denial by the prosecution that the said license granted for selling 4000 liters of high speed diesel