RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Enforcement Officer, appointed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act) filed a complaint under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 7 of the Act before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindon City with the allegations that firm M/s. Ramesh Chand Rajendra Kumar was carrying on business of sale of kerosene oil without obtaining the licence therefor and that Ramesh Chand is the proprietor of that firm but Rajendra Kumar who is the son of the above said Ramesh Chand is also working in the said shop and has been writing vouchers and attending the business of the said shop. It was alleged that above said firm alongwith Ramesh Chand and Rajendra Kumar had prepared two sets of stock registers one the genuine and the other fake one. The complaint also alleged that Nirmal Kumar who was carrying on business as the Proprietor of M/s. Dharolia Brothers, Mahaveerji had also committed offence by showing fictitious supply to firm M/s. Ramesh Chand Rajendra Kumar. The learned Addl. C.J.M. examined Shri Hari Sharan Sharma, Enforcement Officer, who has filed the complaint as P.W. 1 and Shri Jugal Kishore, who had inspected the permises of firm M/s. Ramesh Chand Rajendra Kumar as P.W. 2. On the basis of above evidence the learned Addl. C.J.M. framed charges against the petitioner (Rajendra Kumar) as well as against his father Ramesh Chand under Sec. 3/7 of the Act. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the above said charge framed against him.

(2.) I have heard Shri J.P. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also persued the record of the learned trial Court.

(3.) The learned trial Court in the impugned order dated 21-7-1989 has observed that although Ramesh Chand was the proprietor of firm M/s. Ramesh Chand Rajendra Kumar, the evidence shows that the petitioner is also working on the shop of the above said firm and had been handling the business. I have gone through the statements of the above said two witnesses but I do not find any evidence to support the fact that the petitioner was also handling the business of the firm in any way. The learned Pub. Pro. also sought time to study the file and after going through the statements of the above said two witnesses he fairly conceded that there was no evidence against the petitioner. The only fact which can be said to have come out on the record is that the petitioner was present on the shop of his father at the time when the shop was inspected by Shri Jugal Kishore (PW 2) and Jugal Kishore had taken the registers and some of the documents into possession in presence of the petitioner. The observations of the learned trial Court in the impugned order that the petitioner was attending the business of his father in the above said shop in thus based on no evidence. There being no material against the petitioner, the learned trial Court erred in framing charge under Sec. 3/7 of the Act against him.