1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is an authorized transporter of food grains belonging to the Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Limited, which was
scheduled to be distributed under Public Distribution System, by virtue of a contract executed by and between the petitioner and the Bihar State Food
and Civil Supply Corporation Limited on 9th August, 2016. It was the duty of the transporter to transport food grains being the essential commodities
to F.C.I. godown.
3. The prosecution case as disclosed from the F.I.R., in brief, is that on 5th July, 2017, Police recorded a statement of one Raju Kumar, driver of a
Pickup Van, who used to work under the petitioner. It was ascertained from the statement of the said Raju Kumar that on the self same date, he went
to the godown of F.C.I. to transport food grains, but he was informed that there was no food grain to be transported from the godown to any supplier
on that particular date. Therefore, he drove the said vehicle to Kespa and loaded some cattles on the Pickup Van and transported the said cattles. The
Police conducted a raid in one Maa Tara Rice Mill at Kespa and found huge quantity of food grains loaded in gunny bags with F.C.I. mark. The said
food grains were seized. After seizure of the said food grains, it was presumed by Police that the carrier of the food grains, namely, Amarjeet Kumar,
obviously transported the said food grains to Maa Tara Rice Mill, Kespa illegally and he was implicated in connection with Tikari P.S. Case No. 281
of 2017, dated 7th July, 2017, under Sections 7/9 of the Essential Commodities Act.
4. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for quashing of the said F.I.R. alleging, inter alia ,that in connection with Tikari P.S. Case
No. 281 of 2017, the petitioner was implicated only on surmise and conjecture. There is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner that he employed
pickup van under his control to transport food grains from F.C.I. godown illegally to a private rice mill. Moreover, the learned Advocate for the
petitioner refers to page no.-67 of the instant writ petition, where from it is ascertained that Block Supply Officer, under the Bihar State Food and Civil
Supply Corporation Limited, examined the stock of Tikari Godown and found the stock at intact with the supply which was sent to the said godown.
Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that on one hand, there is no prima facie evidence against the petitioner that he
transported food grains to any private rice mill at Kespa and secondly, the stock of goods were found intact in the godown. So no charge under
Section 7/9 of the Essential Commodities Act lies against the petitioner.
5. By filing a counter affidavit, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 4 that petitioner along with other accused persons were implicated in
connection with the above mentioned Police case on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Block Supply Officer. The investigation of the
case was concluded and charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons including the petitioner. It is needless to say that on filing of the
charge-sheet, Court will presume that prima facie case against the petitioner has been established. An F.I.R. may be quashed due to the lack of prima
facie case. If, there is insufficient evidence or material to establish a prima facie case against the accused, the Court may consider quashing the F.I.R.
The absence of credible evidence or a lack of substance in the allegations can be a valid ground for seeking quashing.
6. In the instant case, the petitioner has not come forward by amending his prayer to quash the charge-sheet filed against him for absence of credible
evidence. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the F.I.R. When the investigation of the case ends with the filing of the charge-sheet against the
petitioner, he can pray for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that there is no material to frame charge against him. At this
stage, after filing of the charge-sheet, F.I.R. cannot be quashed.
7. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to grant any relief in the instant writ petition to the petitioner. However, this order is passed while disposing
of the instant writ petition only on the point of law without considering the materials in the case diary. It is for the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act,
who will try the case to consider the case diary to find out as to whether there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner or not, and if there is no
sufficient evidence for proceeding with the trial against the petitioner, he is at liberty to discharge the petitioner in accordance with the provisions
contained in the Cr.P.C.
8. With the above order, the instant writ petition is disposed of.
