RAKESH DHIRAJLAL POPAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP Mr.K.P.Raval waives service of Rule for the respondent no.1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Aamir S. Pathan for Mr.Ashish M.Dagli. Perused the record. Petitioner herein is accused before the Sessions Court of Rajkot in Sessions Case No.134/2013 which is arising out of Rajkot Police Station 'A' Division C.R.No. I- 319/2012 under section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 14, 15, 17, 19, 23 (2) of the Securities Contract Regulation Act, 1956.

(2.) The sum and substance of the prosecution case is to the effect that the petitioner is conducting business of carrying out transactions of equity shares without having license for the purpose from his office as a share broker and thereby, he is cheating the public, therefore, practically it is a statutory and technical offence in absence of any incident or evidence regarding cheating by any private individual. It is also submitted by the petitioner that investigator has not bothered to verify the ownership of the office and that only statement of the co-accused is relied upon for filing the charge sheet and that when there is no complaint and when the petitioner was not present at the time of actual raid and when there is notification issued by the State Government as provided under the Statute, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any offence and hence, he is seeking discharge.

(3.) I have perused the bunch of charge sheet and impugned order, I do not find any substance in the Revision Petition for the simple reason that at such stage of deciding the discharge application what is required to be looked into is only prima-facie evidence which is very much available on the record in as much as the petitioner himself is unable to show that how he is permitted to deal with the equity shares in open market as a share broker when he does not have a license as provided under the statute. The Investigating Agency has recorded the statement of several persons with whom the petitioner has dealt with so also collected the details of the transaction entered by the petitioners therefore, there is prima-facie case against the petitioner for acting as a share broker unauthorizedly. As already stated, it would be inappropriate to discuss all the evidences and to conclude positively on any of the prima-facie evidence which would otherwise prejudice the trial at later stage. Therefore, I do not see any substance in the revision.