RAJENDRA CHANDRA JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners seeking a direction for quashing pro- ceedings arising out of the charge-sheet dated 18-8-1989 under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act in Case No. 2 of 1990. State v. Rajendra Chandra Jain pending in the court of (the Special Judge, Varanasi. The facts of the case in brief are that there is a firm, namely, Shri Vishnu Concrete Products Pvt. Ltd., Ram Nagar, Varanasi, who are engaged in manufacturing of prestressed cement concrete poles supplied by them to the State Electricity Board. The applicants were issued am authorisation letter by the State for supply of 890 metric tonne cement (from the Orient Cement, Devpura in Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that some investigation was conducted by the Sales Tax authorities combined with the supply office inspectors. In pursuance of the inspection one FIR was lodged under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In the said FIR it was stated that the petitioners after obtaining the supply of cement on the basis of the allotment letter issued by the Government, obtained the said cement and sold it to others on retail without any licence. It is stated that the receipts issued were also not in accordance with law and the Cement Control Order. The receipts bear no signatures and the particulars of the purchaser. The investigation in the said case was made and a charge-sheet has been submitted giving rise to sessions trial pending in the court of the Special Judge (Economic Offences) Varanasi. Further investigation, after submission of this charge-sheet was also made by the police and another supplementary charge-sheet was filed in which it was stated that the cement obtained by the petitioners from the Andhra Pradesh was to be supplied on F. O. R. at Yaranasi. If the supply was not obtained through Railways, then the consignee was entitled for the refund of the Railway freight. The case of the prosecution is that the applicants got the refund of the Railway freight from the manufacturers as they pleaded to have taken supply carried to their place by trucks. It is stated that on an investigation it was found that the applicants never brought the said cement supplied on basis of letter of authorisation in Uttar Pradesh. It appears that they sold the said cement either at Nagpur or some where in the Madhya Pradesh itself. They claimed the reimbursement amount of freight charges from the company by falsely stating that they got the consignment through the trucks. It is also stated that the records in this respect have been falsely fabricated by the accused persons. The allegations are also against the Sales Tax Officer who has also been arraigned as an accused in the said sessions trial. In the Case Crime No. 2 of 1990. State v. R. C. Jain u/Sec. 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, an application was made by the applicants before the Special Judge, Varanasi, that the proceedings! in the present case going on before him be stayed. It was stated that the other charge-sheet which has been filed under sections 467/468/471 /420/120-B. I. P. C. and section 13-D of the Prevention of Corruption Act are destructive of the prosecution case in the Essential Commodities Act case. It was stated that the trial proceedings in the Essential Commodities Act case be stayed. Learned Sessions Judge heard and passed orders that the order shall be passed at the time of hearing of arguments in the said sessions trial. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Special Judge, this application has been filed.

(2.) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that second charge-sheet and the allegations therein are destructive of the charges framed under the first charge-sheet under the Essential Commodities Act. Thus, the trial under section 3/7 of the E. C. Act is liable to be quashed. IT is also urged that if the facts as stated in the supplementary charge-sheet that cement supplied on letter of authorisation was never brought in the state of Uttar Pradesh and it was sold in the Madhya Pradesh, then the U. P. Cement Control Order would not be applicable at all. The reply argument to the said allegations the learned Additional Government Advocate pointed the provisions of clause 9 of the U. P. Cement Control Order, 1973. The provisions of clause 9 is quoted here in under :