Surya Kant, J.@mdashThe prayer in this petition is for quashing of the order dated 10.8.2005 (Annexure P-4) as also charge-sheet dated 10.8.2005 (Annexure P-5) vide which learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, framed charges against the Petitioner u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sent the case file for trial to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur.
2. It is contended that since vide order dated 10.8.2005 (Annexure P-4), learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, has held that the offences are triable by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, he need not to have framed charges vide the order of eleven dated (Annexure P-5).
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mrs. R.K. Nihalsinghwala, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and pursued the impugned orders.
6. Pursuant to a complaint filed the Petitioner by the Fertilizer Inspector, Ferozepur, a case u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was registered against him. It appears that after investigation, police submitted a cancellation report (Annexure P-3) in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge on the premise that the offence was triable by the Special Judge.
7. After hearing the complainant, i.e., Fertilizer Inspector, learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to accept the cancellation report and accordingly decided to proceed with the case. At that point of time, it was brought to his notice that the offences are triable by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class which led to the passing of the order dated 10.8.2005 (Annexure P-4) by him vide which learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the complainant as well as the Petitioner to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur on 25.8.2005. However, on the same date vide a separate order (Annexure P-5), he as also framed charges against the Petitioner. Aggrieved at both the orders aforesaid that the Petitioner has approached this Court.
8. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the offence is triable by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, I am of the view that the issue regarding framing of charges ought to have been decided by the Court, before whom, if so required, the trial has to take place. This petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 10.8.2005 (Annexure P-5) is set aside. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to consider afresh the issue regarding framing of charges against the Petitioner. Needless to say that the legality of the cancellation report (Annexure P-3) may also be examined into by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while deciding the issue regarding framing of charges.
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that after the case was sent back to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, vide order Annexure P-4, he has summoned the prosecution witnesses for 7.12.2005. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, referred to above, it is directed that the issue pertaining to framing of charges may be decided by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on or before 7.12.2005 so that if the charges are framed against the Petitioner, the witnesses, who have since been summoned for 7.12.2005, can also be examined.
10. Disposed of.
11. Let a copy of this order be handed-over to Mrs. R.K. Nihalsinghwala for necessary information and compliance.
Petition allowed.
