Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.
Under challenge is FIR relating to Case Crime No. 795 of 2009, under Sections 418, 420 & 424 IPC, police station Sampurana Nagar, district Lakhimpur Kheri.
We have gone through the FIR and the recovery memo. It comes out that 2160 bags of Cement were recovered from the possession of one Shyam Lal who was not a licensee of keeping such a huge quantity of Cement with him. On the date of recovery apprehended accused Shyam Lal stated that he is in the business of Cement smuggling in Nepal. In the recovery memo, it is said that Shyam Lal is licensee of Honey, Rice and Cotton, but subsequently, since Shyam Lal had moved an application for release of cement and on that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has released Cement to Shyam Lal on 08.12.2009 without ascertaining as to whether Shyam Lal was licensee of the Cement or not. As such, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that actual culprit with respect to transaction of black-marketing of the Cement is Shyam Lal and petitioner has got nothing to do with such smuggling and black-marketing of Cement in the country of Nepal. As to whether, Shyam Lal is licensee of Cement or not is still in question.
Since the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence and, as such, the same cannot be quashed.
The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.1.2010 Kaushal