1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated this the 7th day of October, 2014

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

Criminal Petition No.5353/2014

BETWEEN

K.M. JAYARAMA
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA
NO.401, 5TH MAIN ROAD
NAGENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 050 ... PETITIONER

(By Sri RAGHU PRASAD B S, ADV.,)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
SHO BY NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENT

(By Sri NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE

PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.1143/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE C.J. AND JMFC,
NELAMANGALA ALLEGING OFFENCE U/S 420 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND
7 OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
 2

ORDER

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also

the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

Respondent/State and perused the records.

2. The petitioner sought quashing of the entire

charge sheet and further proceedings in C.C.No.1143/2013

on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC., Nelamangala registered

against the petitioner for the offences under Section 420 of

IPC and Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,

1955 (‘the Act’ for short).

3. The records discloses that the Nelamangala Police

have registered a case against the petitioner for the above

said offences on the allegations that on 15.1.2013, the

Investigating Officer received a credible information that the

petitioner is indulging in refilling the gas cylinders without

any licence or permission and thereby cheated the

 3

Government and also the people at large. On receiving such

information, the Investigating Officer went there, collected the

panch witnesses, conducted the panchanama and found that

the 138 cylinders were there. Out of them, 5 cylinders were

filled up worth Rs.1,50,000/-. On these allegations, the

Investigating Officer has investigated the matter and filed the

charge sheet.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously

contends that though the petitioner has produced the licence

granted by the Central Government for filling up of LPG and

storage of LPG Gas in his premises and also permitted to refill

the cylinders and it was in force upto 30.9.2015, but the

police without receiving the same filed a false case on the

basis of drawing up of Mahazar and recording the statement

of some witnesses. It is argued that some of the witnesses are

the Police Constables, who were working under the

 4

Investigating Officer. On perusal of the records, it discloses

that some independent witnesses are also examined.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted

that the police have no jurisdiction to investigate the matter

under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act and the same is illegal as

there is no order under Section 3 of the Act is violated by the

petitioner. When Sections 3 & 7 of the Act are not attracted,

on which basis the charge sheet has been filed for the offence

under Section 420 of IPC, the said provision also does not

survive for consideration. At this juncture, in my opinion, the

Court has to evaluate the witnesses examined by the

Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., In order to

weigh, whether the materials are sufficient to proceed against

the accused for the purpose of framing of charges and put the

accused persons on trial. He also submits that even if the

accused produce any materials before the trial Court, the trial
 5

Court may not look into the said documents, only look into

the charge sheet and pass appropriate orders.

6. In this regard, it is worth to refer a decision of this

Court, which is reported in 1982(2) Kant. L.J. 437 (Kant),

in the case of Thirthraj Upendra Joshi v. State of

Karnataka, wherein, this Court has held that:

“the Magistrate not adverting to documents filed by

the accused before framing charge-held the accused
was not given sufficient opportunity contemplated
under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.,”

7. When the documents produced by the accused go

to the route of the case of prosecution itself, then the

Magistrate is not prevented from looking into such

documents, Section 239 makes it abundantly clear that, “If,

upon considering the police report and the documents sent

with it under section 173 and making such examination, if

any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and

after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity

 6

of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against

the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused,

and record his reasons for so doing.”

8. The above said Section equally empowers the

Magistrate to examine the accused and giving opportunity to

the accused, if he thinks necessary under the peculiar facts

and circumstances of the case before passing any orders.

Therefore, the Magistrate is not required to only look into the

charge sheet papers and ignore the materials produced by the

accused. I should not be understood that if the accused

produced un-necessary materials before the Court; those

things should be enquired into by the Magistrate by holding a

mini trial. But whenever the accused relies upon any

admitted, unique uncontroverted documents, which go to the

route of the prosecution case, then the Magistrate if he thinks

necessary (not mandatory), he can examine the said

documents and also the charge sheet and pass appropriate

 7

orders. The word used in Section 239 that, ‘the Magistrate

thinks necessary’, it gives an ample discretion to the

Magistrate only under peculiar situation the Magistrate has to

exercise that sound judicial discretion under the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, in the above

said circumstances, the petitioner herein is at liberty to

produce the licence granted by the competent authority to

refilling the cylinders to show to the Court that he was an

authorized dealer and he has got permission to fill up the gas

cylinders. After considering the above said facts and also

giving opportunity to both the parties, the learned magistrate

has to pass appropriate orders under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.,

9. All the other grounds urged by the learned

Counsel before this Court are also kept open to be urged

before the learned Magistrate.

10. With these observations, petition stands disposed

of.
 8

The office is hereby directed to return all the documents

filed by the petitioner along with the petition.

11. In view of disposal of the main petition itself, IA-

2/2014 for Stay does not survive for consideration. Hence,

the same is dismissed.

Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*