STATE OF ASSAM Vs. ACHIT RANJAN DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 401/482, Cr. P.C. by the State against the order dated 19-8-82 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup at Gauhati in Case No. C. M. No. 4(K-3)/82. By the aforesaid judgement and order, the learned Sessions Judge discharged three accused persons, namely, Achit Ranjan Dey, Santok Singh and Debendra Singh under Section 7(1) (a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and under Sections 120(B), 407/409, IPC. Accused Debendra is the son of accused Santok.

(2.) On 4-3-81 a search was conducted by Bureau of Investigation (E. O.), Assam in the premises of M/s. Assam Spun Pipe and industries Ltd. Kalapahar belonging to accused Santok and found 524 bags of cement including 427 bags of imported cement. It has been alleged that the said cement was kept without any valid permit. Accused Santok is a contractor under C.P.W.D. and he has been allotted construction works in the C.R.P.F. campus at Khanapara. 600 bags of cement far the purpose of execution of the aforesaid works were allotted to accused Santok. Delivery of cement was taken from the State P.W.D. godown at Baisistha by accused Achit Ranjan Dey, a junior Engineer of C.P.W.D. and it was handed over to accused Debendra on behalf of accused Santok. Out of 600 bags of cement only 150 bags were carried to work side and the remaining 450 bags were unloaded in the above factory premises of accused Santok. As the said bags were found in the factory premises by Investigating Agency, the present prosecution has been started.

(3.) The main contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Public Prosecutor is that the learned Sessions Judge not only considered the entire case, but also considered the defence which is not permissible at the stage of framing charge. In my opinion, the contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya has no force as it is the duty of the court even at the stage of framing charge to consider whether there is sufficient material to go into trial. In other words whether the evidence collected by the prosecution, if unrebutted, warrant any conviction. In doing so, the court can also consider the material on record. In the instant case for the reason which I shall presently state, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion only on the basis of evidence collected by the prosecution and the material available with him and as such there is no illegality.