State vs Geeta Goel
2011 Latest Caselaw 1941 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+          CRL.REV.P. 154/2011 and CRL.M.A.4042-4043-2011

                                                 Decided on: 04.04.2011

IN THE MATTER OF :

STATE                                                     ..... Petitioner
                               Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the
                               State

                      versus

GEETA GOEL                                             ..... Respondent
                               Through: Nemo


CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may          Yes
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?         Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be                 Yes
        reported in the Digest?



HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner-State under

Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for

setting aside order dated 27.9.2010 passed by the learned ASJ allowing

the revision petition filed by the respondent herein, against an order

dated 30.3.2010 passed by learned ACMM, and consequently discharging

her under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short 'the

EC Act') in proceedings arising from FIR no. 157/2008.

2. The brief facts of this case are that the respondent is the

proprietor of a restaurant, by the name of M/s Apna Rasoi and the co-

accused, one Mr. Ajay was the manager of the said restaurant, in charge

of the day to day functioning of the restaurant. As per the case of the

prosecution, on 22.02.2008 at about 3.40 pm, an inspection of the

restaurant was conducted by the Inspector, Food & Supply Department,

where it was found that LPG domestic cylinders were being used in an

unauthorized manner, in contravention of Section 3 of the EC Act. Based

on this the present FIR was registered and investigation was conducted.

As per the prosecution, the petitioner made a disclosure statement on

25.04.2008, admitting that she was aware that LPG cylinders were being

used unauthorizedly in the restaurant owned by her to save money. After

investigation was completed, chargesheet was filed against the petitioner

and the co-accused. By the order dated 30.3.2010 passed by learned

ACMM, charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 7 of the

EC Act.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.3.2010 framing

charge, a revision petition was preferred by the respondent before the

Court of the learned ASJ, which was duly allowed. By the impugned order

dated 27.09.2010, the learned ASJ discharged the petitioner on the

ground that there was no evidence on the record to show that the LPG

cylinders were being used at the restaurant with the connivance of the

petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of discharge, the State has

preferred the present revision petition seeking quashing of the same.

4. The learned APP for the State contends that the learned ASJ

failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent is the license holder in

respect of the restaurant and it is quite improbable that she would be

unaware of the functioning of her restaurant. He also states that no

document has been placed on record to show that only the manager was

incharge of the day to day affairs of the restaurant and the petitioner had

no role to play. He argues that it is settled law that at the stage of

framing of charge only a prima facie view has to be taken, and the

evidence cannot be gone into in detail. He further argues that it was

erroneous on the part of the learned ASJ to have considered the

disclosure statements of the petitioner and the co-accused at the stage of

framing of charge. Relying on the abovementioned submissions, learned

APP for the State prays for setting aside the impugned order and seeks

framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 7 of the EC Act.

5. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law pointed out by

the learned APP that at the stage of framing of charge, a roving inquiry

cannot be conducted in respect of the evidence on record. At the same

time, it is settled law that where on a prima facie view of the chargesheet,

it is found that there is no evidence against the accused to support a

conviction, the said accused should not be put through the ordeal of a

trial and should be discharged. In the present case, the learned ASJ has

arrived at the conclusion that there is no evidence against the respondent

other than her own disclosure statement dated 25.04.2008. It is of

significance that before the learned ASJ, the respondent had contended

that she had been forced to sign blank papers, on which subsequently her

disclosure statement was written. The court below also noted the fact that

in the two disclosure statements made by the co-accused on 11.03.2008

and on 22.02.2008, he had not levelled any allegations against the

respondent. As a result, on a prima facie view of the evidence, the

learned ASJ discharged the respondent. This court concurs with the

aforesaid findings of the learned ASJ. Having regard to the fact that the

only evidence available against the respondent is her own disclosure

statement, which has come into doubt and keeping in mind the fact that

there is no allegation levelled against her in the statements of the co-

accused, on a prima facie view of the case, no interference is required in

the impugned order. Further, the scope of revision is very limited and

only where an illegality, arbitrariness or perversity is shown on the face of

the record, would this Court exercise its revisional jurisdiction. In the

present case, no such illegality or arbitrariness has been shown.

6. The petition is accordingly dismissed along with the pending

applications, as being devoid of merits.

                                                            (HIMA KOHLI)
APRIL    04, 2011                                              JUDGE
pm