JUDGMENT 1. - Both these petitions are preferred against the same order dated 15th May, 89, by which, the trial court has framed charges against the petitioners. 2. On some information received by the police authorities, the shop of Dharamsingh petitioner was raided and 29 tins of palm-oil and 12 tins of rape-seed oil were found there. The oil was seized under section 102, Criminal Procedure Code . Then, the police authorities contacted the District Supply Officer (DSO), Jaipur, and he was informed that the palm-oil and rape-seed oil were issued to the dealer for selling it to the consumers on ration-cards. So, after registering a case, the police submitted a challan against both the petitioners. The trial court, on the basis of the papers submitted by the police, framed charges against Banwarilal and Dharamsingb. It is pertinent to note here that during investigation, it was found that one Ramswaroop was also involved in this matter and he was arrested by the police, who was later on released by this Court under section 439, Cr.PC on bail. But, when the challan was submitted, the police set this Ramswarcop free and no challan was filed against him. As there is no point about Ramswaroop in this petitions, there is no sense in commenting about not putting challan against Ramswaroop. 3. Mr. Biri Singh. the learned counsel for the petitioner Banwarilal referred to the report submitted by the Enforcement Officer, to the DSO, Jaipur, and also to the comments of the DSO. After perusing the said report, it seems that when the matter was brought to the notice of the DSO that Banwarilal had sold palm and rape-seed oil to Dharamsingh without authority and contravening the provisions of the licence, the matter was investigated by the department. The Enforcement Officer inspected the shop of Banwarilal, checked the record of the palm and rape-seed oil, and after that, no illegality was found in the shop of dealer Banwarilal. The recommendation of the Enforcement Officer was that in his inquiry, Banwarilal was not found to be connected with the recovery of 41 tins of oil from the possession of Dharamsingh. So, a report was submitted that there is no ground to proceed against Banwarilal. The DSO Jaipur, also agreed with the report of the Enforcement Officer. The recommendation of the Enforcement Officer was that in his inquiry, Banwarilal was not found to be connected with the recovery of 41 tins of oil from the possession of Dharamsingh. So, a report was submitted that there is no ground to proceed against Banwarilal. The DSO Jaipur, also agreed with the report of the Enforcement Officer. The Enforcement Officer, during investigation, recorded statements of a number of persons who had purchased oil from the shop of Banwarilal, wherein, they stated that they had purchased oil against their ration-cards. The stock-register was checked, according to which. Banwarilal was having 20 tins of oil on 14th September, 87. He sold 2 tins of oil on 15th September, 87, and he had 18 tins of oil in his stock. 41 tins of oil was recovered on 13th Sept. 87 from the shop of Dharamsingh. So, according to the Enforcement Officer and as agreed to by the DSO, there was no possibility for Banwarilal to have sold palm and rapeseed oil on 13th September, 87, to Dharamsingh. Out of recovered 41 tins, 29 tins were of palm oil and 12 tins were of rape-seed oil, and they were sold prior to 13th Sept. 87. But, according to the Enforcement Officer, there was no illegality in the stock-register and the oil was sold to consumers on ration-cards. So, according to the report of the Enforcement Officer and the DSO, no case was made out against petitioner Banwarilal. The Investigating Officer, during investigation, recorded statements of certain witnesses, particularly that of Tahalsingh, son of accused Dharamsingh, and much importance was given to the statement of this witness Tahalsingh. Whatever evidence is on the record that is oral statement of the witnesses examined during investigation, and they do not have any value in the face of the report of the Enforcement Officer and the DSO, Jaipur, according to which, there was no illegality found in the stock-register or in the selling of oil by Banwarilal. 4. In my view, the trial court has not been able to appreciate correctly the report of the Enforcement Officer and the DSO, Jaipur, but, in a routine manner, as a challan was filed by the prosecution and oral statements were recorded, it framed charges against petitioner Banwarilal. 4. In my view, the trial court has not been able to appreciate correctly the report of the Enforcement Officer and the DSO, Jaipur, but, in a routine manner, as a challan was filed by the prosecution and oral statements were recorded, it framed charges against petitioner Banwarilal. From the record of the DSO, which has been seized by the investigating officer and produced along with the challan-papers, shows that even prima facie, there is no case made out against Banwarilal petitioner, for framing charge against him. 5. Hence, Petition No. 561/89, filed by petitioner Banwarilal, is allowed, and the charge framed against him, is hereby quashed. All the proceedings pending against Banwarilal are also quashed. 6. So far as Petition No. 788/89 filed by Dharamsingh petitioner is concerned, after going through the record, do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no prima facie case made out against this petitioner. After perusing the entire record, find that there is nothing to interfere in the order of the trial court framing charge against petitioner Dharamsingh. 7. It was argued by Mr. Tibrewal that charge No. 2 is with regard to abetting Banwarilal for selling the oil to him (Dharamsingh), and so, when the petition of Banwarilal has been allowed, this charge No. 2 be deleted. At this stage, do not want to comment anything on the argument with regard to charge No. 2. The petition of Banwarilal has been accepted and charge against him has been quashed. Dharamsingh petitioner may move the trial court in this regard, if he so desires, and if he can satisfy the court, the court is competent to pass orders, according to law. 8. The Petition No. 788/89 filed by Dharamsingh is, therefore, dismissed. 9. The record of the court below, be sent back immediately.Petition allowed. *******