Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 47 (CAL)

Lal Bahadur Yadav v. The State of West Bengal

2008-01-14

KALIDAS MUKHERJEE

body2008
Judgment KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J. 1. This revisional application under Section 482, 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing of the charge sheet bearing No. 81 dated 30.09.2005 under Sections 379/411/413/414 of the I.P.C. and 30(2) CMN Act and Section 21 of Air Pollution Control Act arising out of Baraboni P.S. Case No. 84 of 2005 dated 13.08.2005. 2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that Baraboni P.S. Case No. 84 of 2005 dated 13.08.2005 arose out of a complaint lodged by one Awadesh Kumar Sing, Dy. Chief Security Officer, G.M. Office, E.C.L., Salanpur to the effect that on 13.08.2005 at 13.05 hours the complainant along with the staff of DEB, Asansol and Baraboni P.S. raided Maa Baishnab Devi Fuel Industry, Jamgram and they found that huge quantity of steam coal was being stacked in open air discharging huge volume of smoke in the nereby areas causing serious air pollution which was also detrimental to the people residing in the area. The owners have violated the provisions of Air Pollution Control Act. During local enquiry it was found that the factory owners Lal Bahadur Yadav and Satyanarayan Agarwal collected the coal from the nearby colliery and illegal mines of Salanpur area of E.C.L. by engaging labourer and thereby running illegal trade of coal in clandestine manner. Thus they violated the provisions of Section 30(2) of CMN Act and committed theft in respect of coal. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted being No. 81 dated 30.09.2005 and the case was pending before the learned Additional C.J.M., Asansol. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the owner of M/S. Maa Baishnab Devi Fuel Industry and deals in the business of manufacturing soft coke and for the purpose of running the said business he obtained necessary documents from the competent authorities as required under the law. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he purchased the coal from E.C.L. under proper challan on necessary payments. The petitioner contends that the Investigating Officer came to the erroneous conclusion with regard to the coal in question without proper chemical examination and the entire charge sheet is liable to be set aside. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he purchased the coal from E.C.L. under proper challan on necessary payments. The petitioner contends that the Investigating Officer came to the erroneous conclusion with regard to the coal in question without proper chemical examination and the entire charge sheet is liable to be set aside. There is also no material to show that the petitioner was involved in similar type of alleged offences and, as such, the Sections 413 and 414 of the I.P.C. are not attracted at all. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is nothing to show that the seized coal was a stolen property and, furthermore, there was no chemical examination of the coal. It is contended that the onus is upon the prosecution to prove that the seized coal was a stolen property. It is submitted that there is no independent witness with regard to the seizure and in a similar case bearing No. CRR 3752 of 2005, the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court was pleased to quash the charge sheet and the said decision is squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State produces the C.D. and submits that the seized property belongs to E.C.L. which was stacked in the godown of the petitioner. It is contended that the points raised by the petitioner herein can only be considered at the time of trial, in as much as, the I.O. after proper investigation submitted charge sheet establishing thereby a prima facie case against the petitioner herein. 5. In the case CRR No. 3752 of 2005 it was held by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court that there was no material in the C.D. to show that the seized coal was the stolen property within the meaning of Section 410 of the I.P.C. and there can be no justification for submitting charge sheet under Section 413, 414 I.P.C. In the instant case it is the contention of the prosecution that the seized coal was collected by way of committing theft from E.C.L. Collieries and illegal mines and that the accused persons could not produce any challan or document for the seized coal. From the C.D. it further appears that the seized coal has been kept in ‘Jimma’ of Awadesh Kumar Singh, Dy. From the C.D. it further appears that the seized coal has been kept in ‘Jimma’ of Awadesh Kumar Singh, Dy. Chief Security Officer of the E.C.L. as the owner of all collieries and coal mines. Now the petitioner has come up with this revisional application contending that he has been dealing in soft coke after obtaining necessary documents from the prescribed authorities and that he purchased the coal from E.C.L. after due payment and obtained receipts thereof. The petitioner has submitted the photocopy of challans and other documents in support of his business along with the Revisional Application. In the charge sheet, the I.O. has mentioned that none could produce any challan or documents in respect of the seized coal. Therefore, the documents which have been shown on behalf of the petitioner herein in this revisional application are subject to proof and it can only be ascertained at the time of trial. The complaint was lodged by the Dy. Chief Security Officer of E.C.L. alleging theft in respect of coal. On perusal of the materials appearing in the C.D., I find that there is no ground to quash the charge sheet in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The decision cited by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 6. In the result, the application fails and the same stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.