Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Sunil Kumar on 27 August, 2009
Author: Sabina
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
Criminal Appeal No.951-SBA of 1997 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.951-SBA of 1997
Date of Decision: August 27, 2008
State of Punjab ...........Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General,Punjab
for the appellant.
Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.
* * *
Sabina, J.
Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the order dated 19.1.1994 passed by the learned Special Court, Ludhiana.
On 20.10.1991, ASI Sher Singh received a secret information that Sunil Kumar was indulging in sale of kerosene oil at higher rates. In case his shop was raided, kerosene oil in sufficient quantity could be recovered from his shop.
On the basis of the said information, raid was conducted by the police party. 200 litres of kerosene was recovered from the shop of Sunil Kumar and he could not produce any valid licence or permit in this regard.
Challan was presented in the Court on 1.6.1993.
Notice of accusation was served upon the accused on 7.6.1993. Accused Criminal Appeal No.951-SBA of 1997 [ 2] did not plead guilty and claimed trial. During the pendency of the trial, accused filed an application under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.PC.') on 8.12.1993 for his acquittal. Vide impugned order, the said application was allowed and the accused was acquitted. Aggrieved by the same, the State has filed the present appeal.
There is no dispute that an application under Section 167(5) Cr.PC. is maintainable with regard to an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Special Court constituted under Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act, is empowered to exercise power under Section 167(5) Cr.PC and stop further investigation into the offence unless for special reasons and in the interest of justice the continuation of investigation beyond that period is necessary.
Learned State counsel has submitted that in case the investigation conducted during the period of six months discloses an offence, the court could take cognizance of the same. Special Court was competent to entertain the police report restricted to six months' investigation and take cognizance on the basis thereof. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal vs. Falguni Dutta and another, 1993(2) RCR (criminal) 431.
We have examined this case in light of the decision of the Apex Court cited above.
In the present case, challan was presented after more than 1 ½ year of the raid. The investigating agency took no steps to collect the evidence within the prescribed period of six months which could prima facie show a case for giving notice before trial. Investigation was not completed within six months of arrest of the accused and after the expiry of Criminal Appeal No.951-SBA of 1997 [ 3] said period, no permission was taken from the Court by the Investigation Officer for extension of time. In the absence of any evidence to prima facie make out a case for giving notice before trial, the accused was liable to be acquitted.
We have gone through the record of the case and find that the impugned order calls for no interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
( Sabina )
Judge
( Jasbir Singh )
Judge
August 27, 2008
arya