(1.) The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 1.4.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur whereby the Revisional Court affirmed the order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the learned C.J.M. Udaipur in Case No. 689/2007 framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 and 8/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the Circle Officer, Udaipur acting on a prior information recovered 199 Ltrs. of liquid styled to be a solvent from a person named Unkarlal. Unkarlal was not found to be possessing any licence etc., for the solvent and accordingly he was booked for the offence under Section 3/7 and 7/8 of the E.C. Act read with Section 3 of the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale Storage and Prevention of Use in Automobiles) order, 2000. It is alleged that Unkarlal on being enquired disclosed that he had purchased the solvent in question from the petitioner. On the basis of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and Unkarlal under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. At the stage of framing of the charges, the petitioner contested the same. It was argued that the petitioner is a licence holder for solvent and that sale of solvent below 20 ltrs is permissible without any licence etc. The petitioner at the stage of framing of charges raised the contention of innocence on two grounds firstly that he had not sold any solvent to any unauthorised person illegally and secondly that the only material on the basis whereof the petitioner had been charge sheeted was the bald statement of the co-accused made to the I.O. which was not permissible in evidence.
(3.) The trial court proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner as stated and the Revisional Court affirmed the order framing charge. Hence, the petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the order framing charge against him.