Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46923 of 2019 Applicant :- Ravindra Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 30.09.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 05.11.2019 as well as summoning order dated 25.11.2019 including entire criminal proceeding of S.S.T. No. 06 of 2019 (State vs. Nirankar Nath Pandey and others) arising out of Case Crime No.476 of 2018 under section 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B and section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (Anti-Corruption Act), Court No.4, Varanasi and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the accused-applicants have been falsely implicated at the instance of Raja Pathak, who had made a complaint on 6.10.2015 to the District Magistrate, Fatehpur that the applicant had shown recovery of 500 cartons of the liquor instead of 800 cartons recovered from the truck in question. Further, it is argued that when the said complaint was made, the accused- applicants came to know about it and they recounted the same and addressed a letter dated 26.11.2015 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate informing him that there was an error in counting because number of 500 cartons was shown as it was reported to him by the labourers and when he actually counted, 800 cartons were found which were kept in the same premises and this was a bonafide mistake committed on part of the applicants. It is further argued that enquiry was ordered into this matter by the District Magistrate in which they were found guilty and were punished being awarded adverse remark. These facts have not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer and conducted the investigation superficially and has submitted charge-sheet against them which needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings and has pointed out that in the statement made by the accused-applicants, it has been stated that only 500 cartons were recovered and when they were asked as to where 300 cartons have gone, they said that they had no knowledge about it. The said submission is shown at page 98L of the paper book. Therefore, it is argued by him that there is clear involvement of the applicants in the present matter.
I have gone through the FIR. In the FIR the names of nine person including the present applicants have been mentioned to be involved in the present occurrence. The said report has been lodged after the accused being found guilty in enquiry.
After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer after having recorded statements of as many as sixteen witnesses. The veracity of the statements of the witnesses cannot be tested in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. From the evidence on record, it cannot be said that cognizable offence is not made out against the accused-applicants.
The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that it was a mistake in counting, which has resulted in showing the recovery of 500 cartons in stead of 800 cartons, is disputed question of fact, it cannot be decided in proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs.
P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, the applicants may approach the trial court to seek discharge at appropriate stage, if so advised, and before the said forum, they may raise all the pleas which have been taken by them here. If such an application is moved, the same shall be disposed of without being influenced by the observation made by this Court.
The applicants shall appear before the court below within 30 days from today and may move an application for bail. If such an application is moved within the said time limit, the same would be disposed of in accordance with law. For a period of 30 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the accused- applicants in the aforesaid case. But if the accused do not appear before the court below, the court below shall take coercive steps to procure his attendance.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 VPS