ELLANDA PRATAP Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 11/85 on the file of Special Judge for cases under Essential Commodities Act.

(2.) The prosecution was launched against the petitioners under S. 33 of the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supply) Order 1980 on the ground that the sample H.S.D. Oil did not fulfil the specifications prescribed by the Indian Standard Institution. On the basis of the report dt. 11-2-1984 and the opinion thereon the charge-sheet was filed. Petitioner 1 is working as salesman in M/s. Ghanpur Filling Station, Ghanpur and the second petitioner is the partner of M/s. Ghanpur Filling Station and the Filling Station is dealer of the Indo-Burma Petroleum Company Limited. Formerly both the petitioners were charge-sheeted in S.T.C. 23/84 in the court of the Special Judge for trial of cases under Essential Commodities Act. During the trial the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and also marked Exs. P-1 to P-11. At the stage the court realised that Ex. P-9 the sanction order dt. 18-7-1984 issued by the Collector is confined to permission to launch prosecution against M/s. Ghanpur Filling Station, Ghanpur only and not to any other person and as the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners also in respect of whom there was no sanction it was observed by the Court that the proceedings against the accused are dropped and the complaint is rejected for want of sanction of the Collector, Warangal. It is also further clarified as follows :

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that after substantial evidence is adduced the order stopping the proceedings is tantamount to acquittal or discharge as provided under S. 258, Cr.P.C. and, therefore, fresh charge is not maintainable. S. 258, Cr.P.C. is as follows :