STATE Vs. GEETA GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the Petitioner-State under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for setting aside order dated 27.9.2010 passed by the learned ASJ allowing the revision petition filed by the Respondent herein, against an order dated 30.3.2010 passed by learned ACMM, and consequently discharging her under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short 'the EC Act') in proceedings arising from FIR No. 157/2008.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that the Respondent is the proprietor of a restaurant, by the name of M/s Apna Rasoi and the co-accused, one Mr. Ajay was the manager of the said restaurant, in charge of the day to day functioning of the restaurant. As per the case of the prosecution, on 22.02.2008 at about 3.40 pm, an inspection of the restaurant was conducted by the Inspector, Food & Supply Department, where it was found that LPG domestic cylinders were being used in an unauthorized manner, in contravention of Section 3 of the EC Act. Based on this the present FIR was registered and investigation was conducted. As per the prosecution, the Petitioner made a disclosure statement on 25.04.2008, admitting that she was aware that LPG cylinders were being used unauthorized in the restaurant owned by her to save money. After investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed against the Petitioner and the co-accused. By the order dated 30.3.2010 passed by learned ACMM, charges were framed against the Petitioner under Section 7 of the EC Act.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.3.2010 framing charge, a revision petition was preferred by the Respondent before the Court of the learned ASJ, which was duly allowed. By the impugned order dated 27.09.2010, the learned ASJ discharged the Petitioner on the ground that there was no evidence on the record to show that the LPG cylinders were being used at the restaurant with the connivance of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of discharge, the State has preferred the present revision petition seeking quashing of the same.