SHANTI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the orders dated 3-4-89 and 1-10-91, passed by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Sirohi, by which the learned Special Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for dropping the proceedings against them and ordered for the de-novo trial. The petitioners have, also, prayed for quashing the proceedings pending in the trial Court.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the Enforcement Inspector, Sirohi, on 21-4-87, inspected the factory of the petitioners and found that the factory started manufacture of cement without obtaining the I. S. I. Certificate and, thus, the petitioners have contravened the provisions of the Cement Control Order and have committed the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. THE cement manufactured by the petitioner in their factory was seized and an F. I. R. was lodged against them. After necessary investigation, the challan was presented against the accused-petitioners and they are facing trial before the learned Special Judge, E. C. Act Cases, Sirohi. THE petitioners, after the accusation were read over to them, moved an application before the learned Special Judge that the prosecution launched against them may be dropped and they may be discharged. THE learned Special Judge considered the contention passed by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and dismissed the application filed by the petitioners by its order dated 3-4-89.

(3.) THE next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in a similar matter, i. e. , in the case of Sodani Cement and Chemicals Private Limited, Abu Road, the State Government ordered for the withdrawal of the case against the accused but no such order was passed in the case of the present petitioners, though the case against them is of the same nature. Whether a case against any accused is to be proceeded-with or withdrawn, that is the matter to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law and in the facts and circumstances of the case and it is not open for this Court to interfere in such matters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for directing the competent authority to withdraw the case against the petitioners, also. THE case of Prakash Chandra Jaiswal (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not applicable to the present case because the petitioners and other three persons were facing separate proceedings. THE facts of their case are different. In the case of Prakash Chandra Jaiswal (supra), the prosecution was launched against two government servants for the same offences and both of them were discharged, but the government launched fresh prosecution against only one accused and, therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that as the case against both the accused was similar and no cogent reasons were shown for not prosecuting the other accused and on the basis of the similarity of the accusation against them, the Court quashed the proceedings by holding that the prosecution was discriminatory. THE ratio of Prakash Chandra Jaiswal's case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.