Allahabad High Court
Sukhvir vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 July, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 83 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3776 of 2021 Applicant :- Sukhvir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mrityunjay Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Mrityunjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging Charge Sheet no.-1 dated 24.03.2018 submitted in Case Crime No.25 of 2018 under Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 I.P.C. P.S.-Tappal, District-Aligarh and Cognizance Taking Order Order dated 08.10.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh on aforesaid charge-sheet.
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 18.011.2017, a delayed F.I.R. dated 12.01.2018 was lodged by first informant opposite party-2, Sri V. K. Singh, District Agriculture Officer/ Fertilizer Controlling Authority Aligarh, which was registered as Case Crime No.25 of 2018 under Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 I.P.C. P.S.-Tappal, District-Aligarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R. applicant Sukhvir Singh have been nominated as solitary named accused.
5. As per prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. it is alleged that upon chemical examination of fertilizer, sample of which was taken from the stock kept in shop of applicant, it was found that same is of sub-standard quality.
6. After registration of F.I.R, Police proceeded with statutory investigation of aforesaid Case Crime Number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Investigation Officer examined various witnesses and on the basis of statements of witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as material collected during the course of investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet dated 24.03.2018 against applicant whereby applicant has been charge sheeted under Section 420 I.P.C. and 3/7 Essential Commodities Act. After submission of above noted charge-sheet cognizance was taken upon same by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 04.08.2020. As a consequence of aforesaid, Case Crime No. 25 of 2018 (State Vs. Sukhvir Singh and others) case into existence. Feeling aggrieved by above, applicant has now approached this Court by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicant is innocent. Prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. is manifestly incorrect. Company which manufactured fertilizers, sample of which was taken from shop of applicant has not been implicated as an accused. He further contends that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to applicant by the laboratory where sample goods were chemically examined. No material exists on record to support the prosecution of applicant. He therefore contends that prosecution of applicant is illegal and malicious. Consequently same is liable to be quashed by this Court.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A has opposed this application. He contends that on the basis of materiel collected during course of investigation. During investigation witnesses have been examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C who have supported prosecution case. Report submitted by Chemical Laboratory is also part of record. Consequently Police has submitted charge sheet dated 24.03.2018 against applicant. In the charge-sheet so submitted five prosecution witnesses have been nominated. On the basis of above, learned A.G.A submits that it cannot be said at this stage that prosecution of applicant is false or there is no material to sustain prosecution of applicant. A prima-facie case is clearly made out against applicant.
9. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of applicants, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court cannot appraise or appreciate evidence to record a finding of innocence of applicant. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
10. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
11. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.7.2021 YK