VIJAY KUMAR ALIAS TINA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court through this present revision petition to challenge the order framing the charge against him for offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act'). The trial Magistrate has framed said charge against the petitioner on 06.07.2012. The case is registered on 11.09.2009 when police party headed by SHO received secret information that Ram Kumar son of Surjit singh caste Jheor resident of village Ganaur, Police Station Sanaur, District Patiala and Jaswant Singh son of Babu Singh, Ramdasia resident of Sanauri Adda near Shitla Mai Da Mandir, Patiala were in the habit of selling blue kerosene oil at Focal Point, Ludhiana to migrant labourers at higher rates in black. The information further was that they were coming from Patiala to Sahnewal with heavy quantity of kerosene oil in Trax Jeep No. PB-11-AF-8905 in drums. The naka was, accordingly, held and Ram Kumar and Jaswant Singh were intercepted with the Trax Jeep. On this basis, it is alleged that Ram Kumar and Jaswant Singh by selling blue kerosene oil had committed offence under Section 7 of the Act.

(2.) As per the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not named in the FIR. No role is assigned to him. The direct allegations are against Ram Kumar and Jaswant Singh. During the course of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed. Counsel would refer to the same to show that this FIR was registered on the basis of secret information. The jeep was allegedly stopped while it was driven by Ram Kumar. Jaswant Singh, at that stage, was found sitting alongwith the driver. The alleged recovery of kerosene oil was affected. After lapse of 12 days, the petitioner was also arrayed as accused on the ground that his name has surfaced during the interrogation of Ram Kumar and Jaswant Singh. Thus, he is being involved on the statement/confession of co accused. As per counsel for the petitioner, there is otherwise no evidence against him to connect him with alleged crime.

(3.) The counsel would contend that the so-called alleged confession of the co-accused made before the police official while in custody, would be inadmissible piece of evidence. Except for this inadmissible evidence, there is no evidence connecting the petitioner with the allegation under Section 7 of the Act. This, according to the counsel, has to be viewed in the light of the fact that the petitioner is not named in the FIR nor was present at the spot. He is not associated or otherwise connected with recovery of the kerosene oil. The only evidence against the petitioner is the statement of coaccused made while in police custody.