IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 436/2006 Satyaveer …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents July 23, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 24.11.2005 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2363/2005, State v. Joga Singh & Ors. under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. Facts, in brief, are that on 9.7.2005, SI NS Bisht along with other police personnel were on law and order duty and at 9.10 pm, an information was received that a tanker no. UP12D- 3631 has come to Dehradun which after filling the kerosene oil from oil depot at railway station will go to Saharanpur and this kerosene oil may be used for mixing in petrol at some petrol pump. The police party reached near the oil depot and when the said tanker started after filling the kerosene oil in it, then it was chased by the police party and was finally overtaken on Saharanpur Road. The driver Joga Singh was arrested on the spot who also confessed his guilt and described the role of the petitioner and other co-accused. He stated that the tanker contained 6000 litres of kerosene oil and the petitioner is the owner of said tanker. The tanker was being taken to Saharanpur but the kerosene oil was actually booked in the name of Agrawal Traders & Company, HPCL, 5 Ramleela Bazar, Dehradun. After taking the kerosene oil and the tanker in possession, a fard was prepared on the spot and thereafter on the basis of the said fard, a case was registered against the petitioner and other co- accused under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet against the petitioner and the other co-accused and thereafter the CJM, Dehradun taken the cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and the co-accused and issued the summoning order dated 24.11.2005 against them. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in this argument due to the reason that from the perusal of the contents of FIR, recovery memo and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other evidence collected by the I.O., a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and the other co-accused under the aforesaid section. The dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. If the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. The petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 26.6.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 23.7.2010 PRABODH 2