Crl. Misc. No. M-22191 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-22191 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 18, 2009 Sandeep Mehra and another .... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Sandeep Mehra and Veer Singh @ Kala have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) challenging order dated 03.07.2009 (Annexure P-12) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissing the petitioners' revision petition against order dated 25.04.2008 (Annexure P-11) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar thereby framing charge against the petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short – the Act) and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) in FIR No.149 dated 27.08.1998, registered at Police Station B-Division, Amritsar. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length and perused the case file. The prosecution case is that complainant Nishan Singh on Crl. Misc. No. M-22191 of 2009 2 10.06.1998 got filled petrol fuel in his scooter from the petrol pump of the petitioners. However, after covering some distance, the scooter started creating trouble. The complainant went back to the petrol pump and found that the petitioners were adulterating petrol with diesel. The complainant reported the matter to the police. Samples of petrol were taken and were found to be adulterated. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in view of Clause 7 of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Prevention of Malpractices in Supply and Distribution) Order, 1990 (in short – the Order), issued under Section 3 of the Act, police had no power to take sample of the petrol. The contention cannot be accepted because Clause 7 of the Order simply enables the State Government to authorize an officer of the Food and Supplies Department not below the rank of Inspector or officer of the Oil company not below the rank of Sales Officer for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Order including search and seizure. However, the order does not exclude the powers of the police conferred under Code of Criminal Procedure to conduct search and seizure. The contention, therefore, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused should be accepted. The contention cannot be accepted because the said proposition would be applicable at the time of final decision of the case and not at the stage of framing of charge. At the stage of charge, the Court has to see only a prima facie case and not to come to a conclusion that the case would end in conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited various judgments of the Supreme Court namely Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another reported as (1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 4, Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijaya and others reported as (1990) 4 Supreme Court Cases 76, Dilawar Balu Kurane Crl. Misc. No. M-22191 of 2009 3 vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 135 and Soma Chakravarty vs. State through CBI reported as (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 403. However, these judgments simply lay down that the Court has to see a prima facie case. There is no quarrel with this legal proposition. In the instant case, prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for framing of charge because they were adulterating petrol with diesel and they had sold adulterated petrol as pure petrol to the complainant. Consequently, it cannot be said that prima facie case is not made out for framing of charge against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar and others – reported as 2008 (4) R. C. R. (Criminal) 924, Shakuntala Devi and others vs. Chamru Mahto and another – reported as 2009 (2) R. C. R. (Criminal) 125 and Krishnan vs. Krishnaveni and another – reported as 1997 (1) R. C. R. (Criminal) 724. These judgments relate to power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No doubt, this Court has wide power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, in the instant case, when prima facie case for framing of charge is made out against the petitioners, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case for the purpose of final decision. August 18, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE