(1.) This revision application by original accused No. 9 is directed against the order dated 24th July, 1996 passed by the Special Judge, Panaji, in Special Criminal Case No. 1/92. The learned Judge directed framing of charges against the accused, including accused No. 9 as he found that there was sufficient material for doing so. Accordingly, he framed charges against the accused. Accused No. 9 was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 408 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved thereby accused No. 9 has preferred this revision application.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the prosecution in question may be stated in brief as follows: The Food Corporation of India has its godown at Sada. The Civil Supplies Department collects food grains from the said godown and transports and stores the same in its various godowns at Taluka places including the one at Mapusa. The work of transporting food grains from the godown from F.C.I, is done by engaging a contractor. Accused No. 10 was the transport contractor engaged by the said Department at the relevant time. Accused No. 9 was at the relevant time working as godown keeper of Mapusa. According to the prosecution the food grains brought and stored in the various godowns of the Civil Supplies Department are meant for distribution to the consumers through Fair Price Shops. On 13th January, 1992, 200 bags of wheat were loaded in two trucks bearing No. GDS 4966 and CDS 4669 for being carried to and stored in the godown at Mapusa. Accused No. 1 is the owner of both the trucks while accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the drivers of the said trucks. It is alleged that accused No. 10 instead of carrying the said wheat bags to the godown at Mapusa, tried to carry the same to Belgaum without any valid permit for such transport. Both the trucks were intercepted on 14th January, 1992 by the P.S.I. of the CID Crime Branch, Panaji. On inquiry with the occupants of the said trucks, he found that they did not have any valid permits for transport of the wheat bags out of the area of Goa. He, therefore, detained both the trucks and seized all the 200 wheat bags loaded therein. Accused Nos. 1 to 4, who were present in the said trucks were arrested and a complaint was lodged against them on the charge of making an attempt to transport the said bags illegally out of Goa without valid permit of transport. Further investigation revealed that the illegal transport of the wheat bags was done with the connivance and assistance of accused Nos. 6 to 9, who are the employees of the Civil Supplies Department. It was also revealed that these four accused had issued permits to accused No. 5, who is an owner of a Fair Price Shop, in excess of his due quota. After due investigation a charge-sheet came to be filed against 11 accused. It is necessary to point out that although accused Nos. 6 to 9 happen to be the public servants, no sanction as required by Section 15-A of the Essential Commodities Act as well as Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was obtained. The same was obtained on 17th August, 1994, that is, after the accused had appeared before the Court pursuant to the summonses issued to them.
(3.) I have heard Shri Kantak, the learned advocate for the revision applicant and Shri A.P. Lawande, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both the learned advocates. I have gone through the police papers. Shri Kantak made two submissions before me. The first is that the learned Judge was in error in holding that there was sufficient material available against accused No. 9 to frame charge. The second submission is that in the absence of any sanction, the learned Judge ought not to have taken any cognizance of the alleged offences against accused No. 9. Shri Lawande, on the other hand, tried to repel both the submissions by contending that the complicity of the accused No. 9 is evident from the police papers. As regards the want of sanction, Shri Lawande pointed out that the same has been obtained before the charge was framed. In any event, according to Shri Lawande, accused No. 9 is not entitled to discharge on the count of want of sanction.