SHAHZAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel. Five persons have been charged to stand trial under Clause 3 of the M.P. Cement (Dealers Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(2.) TRIAL has not begun because before evidence could be recorded on 20 -12 -1988 three of the accused petitioners rushed to this Court and trial Court's records are since lying tagged up with this revision. A conditional stay oder was also passed in this matter on 13 -11 -1988 and proceedings in the trial Court of Special Judge, Gwalior, are held up since then.

(3.) IT is true that the same argument was made before the learned Special Judge and finding recorded by him is, 'there is sufficient ground to connect the accused persons with the contravention in question.' He has further held, 'There is prima facie evidence to involve all the accused persons in the so -called deal pertaining to the unauthorised sale and transportation of the levy cement bags kept in the custody of accused Ramniwas.' Evidently, Court below has not made up its mind as yet as to the provisions under which any offence was committed by any of the accused persons and verily that is not done because in the course of trial the charge could be altered as contemplated under Section 216, Criminal Procedure Code. Much stress is laid by Shri Bansal on Section 211 to contend that within the four corners of the charge stated in the offence -report there could be trial and not beyond that. But that contention I have found to be devoid of merit as it runs counter to the express provision of Section 216, Criminal Procedure Code.