NARSA RAM SANKHLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) This petition has been filed against the order dated 27th July, 1996 passed in Criminal Case No. 5/89 State Vs. Mangilal and other , hereby the learned Special Judge of the Essential Commodities Act, Jalore found a prima facie case under section ⅜ of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner, Narsa Ram. By the aforesaid order the learned Special Judge discharged accused Mangilal and Jetha Ram from the charges under sections 408, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that in another case these charges were being tried. Petitioner, Narsa Ram was also discharged in respect of the charges under sections 408, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for the above mentioned reasons.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no iota of evidence to prima facie show that the petitioner committed an offence under Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is further submitted by him that there is no averment in the first information report or the challan that Mangilal committed the offence with the connivances or consent of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that the order dated 27th July, 1996 should be quashed because it is likely to result in abuse of the process of the Court. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the order of the learned lower court.