Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43335 of 2019 Applicant :- Santraj Bind @ Santraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.558 of 2019 (State Vs. Santraj Bind) arising out of Case Crime No.58 of 2018 under Sections 60, 60(2) Excise Act, Police Station- Saidpur, District- Ghazipur as well as charge sheet No.01 of 2018 dated 18.04.2018 in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that nothing incriminating have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Illegal liquor and its manufacturing apparatus were recovered from the hut of the co-accused which was situated in the premises of brick kiln. He further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that he was owner of the said brick kiln from where recovery was made. No case is made out against the applicant.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer made by the applicant and contended that 45 liters illegal liquor and apparatus for manufacturing it were recovered from the hut situated in brick kiln premises. The applicant is the owner of the said premises and there is allegation on the applicant that manufacturing of the illegal liquor was in his knowledge and he used to co- operate in manufacturing and sale of the illegal liquor. There was active role of the applicant in this illegal act.
In the case of Monika Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 781 it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in this section. In case in hand, from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant relates to the disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 and Disputed defence of the applicant cannot be considered at this stage.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings and charge sheet dated 18.04.2018 of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.
With the aforesaid directions, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Ashutosh Pandey