Allahabad High Court
Har Pal Sharma And Others vs State Of U.P And Another on 10 May, 2010
Author: Arvind Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Arvind Kumar Tripathi
Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14269 of 2010 Petitioner :- Har Pal Sharma And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Nisheeth Yadav,C.B.Yadav Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was challaned under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act read with Section 420 IPC. He also submitted that in fact dealership of the gas agencies was in the name of Smt. Veerwati wife of ex-servicemen. Five employees were working in the establishment of gas agency. The applicant no.2 is son of the dealer and applicant no.1 and 3 are not related. However, on the basis of inspection dated 8.1.2008 by the Senior Supply Inspector and other officials, the applicants were falsely implicated in the present case. According to prosecution case, Civil Supply Inspector inspected the godown on 8.1.2008 along-with his staff and found that 80 filled cylinders were excess in godown, which were meant for delivery and shortage of 50 empty cylinder was found. Apart from that 8 commercial cylinder were found in excess and 8 empty commercial cylinder were found to be less. After the aforesaid inspection the first information report was lodged on 9.1.2008. After investigation, without verifying the correct fact and without evidence, charge-sheet was submitted. When the proceeding was initiated for confiscation of the cylinders recovered from godown then an application was moved on behalf of the applicant. When order of confiscation was passed by the District Magistrate on 3.6.2009 then appeal was filed under Section 6 (C) of the Essential Commodities Act. The appeal was allowed on 22.8.2009 and direction was to decided the matter as fresh, after hearing both sides. Confiscation proceeding is still pending before the District Magistrate. He further submits that those cylinders, which were loaded for distribution was also stopped and due to that reason there was difference in the stock. Since the charge-sheet has been submitted hence there is apprehension of arrest and they have to face trial without any offence committed by them.
Learned AGA opposed the aforesaid prayer on the ground that as far as contention of the applicant is concerned, they were found at the time of inspection on the spot. It appears that they were involved in irregularities in distribution of L.P.G. cylinder.
The argument of learned counsel for the applicant regarding defence of applicants are to be considered on the basis of evidence produced by the parties, hence at this stage, no interference is required in the charge- sheet.
Whether the contention of learned counsel for the applicant is correct or not it is required to be considered on the basis of evidence produced by the parties.Hence no interference is required at this stage.
However, in view of the fact, if applicant files objection/discharge application within 30 days, the same shall be decided expeditiously, at appropriate stage in accordance with law.
Till disposal of the discharge application, applicants may be permitted to appear through counsel unless his presence is found necessary.
With these observations, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off finally.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010 Pramod