AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shivappa, J.—It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused in S.T.C. No.
31 of 1989 on the file of District and Sessions Judge for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Madurai, for offences u/s 6(2) and (3) of the Tamil
Nadu Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 on a petition filed u/s 319, Cr. P.C. The charge sheet was
initially filed in S.T.C.No. 31 of 1989 against five persons. After filing the charge sheet, the petitioners were arrayed as accused persons u/s 319,
Cr. P.C. The first petitioner is a partnership firm, second and third petitioners are partners and the fourth petitioner is the cashier cum bill clerk and
they are included as accused. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no legal evidence against them. The power u/s
319, Cr. P.C. could be exercised by the Court either suo motu or on an application by any one including the accused standing trial before the
Court. But the discretion to act under the provision lay entirely with the court which was bound to exercise it judicially having regard to the facts of
each case. The evidence u/s 319(1) for the formation of opinion for proceeding against a person not being an accused is the evidence brought
before the Court during enquiry or trial. Such evidence may be oral consisting of statements of witnesses. Documents will become evidence only
when they are produced in an enquiry or trial. Therefore the evidence produced at the enquiry or trial will not include statements made to police u/s
161 and the materials collected during investigation. Such materials may become evidence when proved as evidence during inquiry or trial. In the
instant case, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no evidence except the statement of the Investigating Officer that too only
confession of co-accused stating that he was working under Srinivasa Iyengar and none of the witnesses supported this statement during
investigation. In this fact situation, when there is no independent evidence and only a confession of the co-accused, I see no ground to sustain the
order implicating the petitioners herein as accused persons in the said proceedings. The proceedings as against the petitioners alone is quashed. As
against the other accused persons the trial to go on expeditiously. This petition is ordered accordingly.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, petition in Crl. M.P No. 16293 of 1990 is dismissed.