Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19260 of 2020 Applicant :- Kadir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Ker Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.1.
1. By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant, Kadir has sought for quashing all the proceedings of Case Crime no. 226 of 2020, Criminal Case No. 3327 of 2020 (State Vs. Kadir and two Others), under section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Behat,District Saharanpur pending in the Court of ACJM-I, Court No. 17, Saharanpur.
2. The brief facts of this case are that the FIR has been lodged by Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Regional Food Inspector, Behat, Saharanpur on 20.5.2020 at 10.42 Hrs under section 3/7 E.C. Act at P.S. Behat, District Saharapur vie case crime nO. 226 of 2020 against the applicant and two others.
3. On the basis of F.I.R., the P.D.S. shop and stock register of village Kalsiya namely Jitendra Singh Rana was also searched and thereafter the alleged rice along with tractor trolley was brought to the police station since the proceedings of Fard Baramdagi and Supurdaginama followed on 20.5.2020 by the police of police station Behat accordingly the rice measuring about 38-25 Quintal was handed over in the custody of Sheeshpal of P.D.S. Shop of Murtajapur and tractor trolley was also kept at Police Station.
4. The investigating Officer after investigation submitted a charge sheet under section 3/7 E.C. Act against the applicant to two others and on 26.8.2020 the District Magistrate Saharanpur ordered sanction for prosecution of applicant and two other under section 3/7 E.C. Act.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that Public Prosecutor, with the consent of the Court, at any time, before the judgement is pronounced, may withdraw from the prosecution of any person, either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences, of which he is tried. This provision also lays that if the charges are framed, the accused shall be acquitted and if charges has not been framed, the accused shall be discharged.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the decision of this Court in Girish Chand Gupta @ Ram Babu V. State of U.P. & Another, 2002 (2) JIC 887 (AII).
8. In the above judgment, the same question regarding the withdrawal from the prosecution, under the above Government Order, was involved. This Court held that nature of the offence shall not be said to be valid ground for rejecting the application for the withdrawal of the prosecution. It was further held that it was the duty of the Court to have appreciated the grounds which promoted the Public Prosecutor to request for the withdrawal from the prosecution and should not have rejected the application merely looking the nature of the offence without caring to see its gravity.
9. The Government Order itself shows that the Government of U.P. has taken this decision in public interest and no distinction for any class was made. The Court was,therefore, absolutely unjustified in refusing the permission to withdraw the case.
10. The application is hereby allowed and the proceeding is quashed in Case Crime no. 226 of 2020, Criminal Case No. 3327 of 2020 (State Vs. Kadir and two Others), under section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Behat,District Saharanpur pending in the Court of ACJM-I, Court No. 17, Saharanpur.
Order Date :- 21.9.2021 RPD