IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.674 OF 2005 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Ram Sevak Aggarwal …………Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents (2) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.613 OF 2005 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Tahir Hussain & others …………Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: July 16, 2010 Sri PC Bisht, Adv. for the applicants Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondents HON. DHARAM VEER, J. These criminal applications have arisen out of a common FIR as well as against the common summoning order and the issue to be decided is also one and the same, hence both of them are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. These criminal applications, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), are directed for quashing the common summoning order-dated 18.7.2005 passed by the CJM, US Nagar and also to quash the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1623/2005 (Case Crime No.537/04), State Vs. Subhash Narang & others, U/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 {hereinafter to be referred as the Act} and U/s 406/411 IPC pending in the court of CJM, US Nagar. 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 28.8.2004 at about 4:30 PM, N.K. Singh Chauhan, Tehsildar Jaspur along with Yusuf Ali, Assistant Registrar Kanungo caught the Truck bearing No.UPY-1866 at M/s Balaji Rice Mill, Jaspur, out of which 280 Bags of Rice were unloaded while the 35 Bags were still loaded in the Truck. On being enquired from Mr. Shahid Ali, Marketing Inspector, it was informed that in the said Truck, 315 Bags of Rice were loaded from the Marketing Godown towards the scheme of grain in lieu of work. It was also stated that out of those 315 bags of rice issued from Rice Common Marketing Godown, 180 bags of rice were issued in favour of petitioner-Subhash Narang, who is the Salesman of Kisan Sewa Sahkari Society, 55 bags of rice were issued in favour of petitioner-Tahir Hussain and 80 bags of rice were issued in favour of petitioner-Jamila Khatoon. The unloaded bags, after being loaded in the said Truck along with the remaining bags, were given in the Supurdgi of Pradeep Goyal. It was also stated that those three dealers, in connivance with petitioner-Ram Sewak Aggarwal, who is the partner of M/s Balaji Rice Mill, were unloading the said rice bags in the said Mill in order to get undue advantage and thereby they have committed the criminal breach of trust as well as dishonestly received the said rice bags knowingly that the said bags were related to the Fair Price Shops, and further that the said act is also in violation of the licence issued to the dealers. Thereafter the matter was investigated and during investigation, the I.O. collected the evidence against the petitioners and after completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against them before the court concerned. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, took cognizance and proceeded 3 to summon the petitioners u/s 406/411 IPC and 3/7 of the Act vide order dated 18.7.2005. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed these applications. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the petitioners have been wrongly summoned by the court below. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the First Information Report, the statements of the complainant S.K. Aggarwal, S.M.I. Jaspur and that of witnesses Shahid Ali, Marketing Inspector and N.K. Singh Chauhan, Tehsildar, Jaspur, who in their statements have amply corroborated the prosecution story, the offences punishable u/s 406/411 IPC and one punishable u/s 3/7 of the Act, are prima facie made out against the petitioners on the basis of the above- said discussion and the trial court has rightly proceeded to summon the petitioners to face trial. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused persons and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the FIR as well as the statements of the complainant and that of other witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly been summoned by the trial court. 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. 4 For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in these applications. The applications C482 are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed. Interim orders dated 5.10.2005 and 15.9.2005 are vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 16, 2010 Rdang