Judgment · High Court

Heard.

ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consentof learned counsel for the parties. 40 apl 1166.25.odt..odt 2 3. The present application is preferred by the applicantsfor quashing of the First Information Report in connection withcrime No.75/2015 registered with the non-applicant No.1-PoliceStation Dabki Road, Akola under Sections 188, 273, 328 of the Indian Penal Code along with 26(2)(iv) & 59 of the Food Safetyand Standard Act, 2006 and consequent proceeding arising out ofthe same bearing Charge-sheet No.39/2021 and Sessions CaseNo.140/2021 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-1,Akola.

The crime is registered on the basis of report a secreteinformation received by non-applicant No.1-Police Station and itrevealed that one Chetan Subhash Gupta had stored prohibiteditems, i.e. tobacco and pan masala, in his shop. On receiving thesaid secrete information, Food Safety Officer along with policeconducted the raid and in the premises of said Chetan Guptaarticles like pan masala Betalnuts and other contraband articleswere found which are seized. On the basis of the said reportpolice have registered crime against the applicants. Duringinvestigation the Investigating Officer has made inquiry with theother co-accused and it revealed that he has purchased the said 40 apl 1166.25.odt..odt 3 articles from the present applicants and other co-accused. On thebasis of the said statement of the co-accused the presentapplicants are arrayed as an accused and after completion of theinvestigation the charge-sheet came to be filed against presentapplicants.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants whosubmitted that the case of the prosecution is that the informantwho is the Food and Safety Officer on the basis of a secreteinformation along with the police has conducted the raid in thepremises of the co-accused and during the raid the contrabandarticles were found in the possession of co-accused. During inquiryhe stated the name and also stated the role that he has procuredthe said contraband articles from the present applicants. Thus, hesubmitted that except the statement of co-accused there isabsolutely no material on record to connect the present applicantin the alleged offence and therefore, no prima-facie case is madeout against the present applicants. In view of that, applicationdeserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the same bystating that the material seized from the main accused is huge in 40 apl 1166.25.odt..odt 4 quantity and on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer present applicants are arrayed as an accusedtherefore, a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. In view of that, applications deserve to be rejected.

After considering the rival submissions of both theparties and on perusal of the investigation papers, which areplaced on record for perusal, it is clear that on the basis of thestatement of the co-accused that he procured the said contrabandarticles from the present applicants, the applicants are arrayed asan accused. During investigation nothing is revealed as far as anyconnection between the present applicants and other co-accusedor they are dealing with any contraband articles. In the presentcase though it is stated by the learned APP that on the basis of thestatement of co-accused the offence is registered against thepresent applicants but the entire charge-sheet nowhere itdemonstrated that what other material has been collected by the Investigating Agency. The prosecution further could not show theapplicants are the person who have supplied the said contrabandarticles. As such, in absence of any material on record against thepresent applicants prosecution under the offences registered 40 apl 1166.25.odt..odt 5 against them would be an abuse of process of law. In view of thatthe application deserves to be allowed.

The criminal application stands disposed of inthe above said terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)manisha