SURESH CHHOTALAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 29-4-1998 of Special Judge, rejecting the application of the revisionist claiming discharge from prosecution in a case lodged under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against him and co-accused No. 1.

(2.) Shri R. J. Goswami, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri K. C. Shah, learned A.P.P., have been heard.

(3.) An application was moved by the revisionist before the Special Judge seeking discharge on the ground that there is absolutely no material to proceed against him for the alleged offences under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The said application was rejected by the Court below on the ground that there is a statement of the co-accused No. 1 against the revisionist and that was sufficient material for proceeding against the revisionist. In support of this view, reliance has been placed upon a pronouncement of this Court in A. D. Soni v. Director of Revenue Intelligence, 1997 (3) GLR 2019. This view and the reasoning of the learned lower Court has been assailed by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the statement of the co-accused during the investigation is hit by Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act and as such, there is no evidence or material to proceed against the revisionist.