- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 27-3-2010, in Misc. Criminal Case No.12/2010, passed by Special Judge, Special Court CBI Cases, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for granting him right to operate the IOC COCO (Company Owned and Company Operated) the retail outlet Mehrouli, in Tehsil Sri Madhopur, District Sikar, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) THE petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned trial court has erred in observing the fact that the petitioner had sold the Patrol pump to one Hari Singh Dhoor; it had erred in observing that the contract between the IOC and the petitioner was no longer in existence since 2005. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner such a finding is highly misplaced. For, even today, the petitioner is the contractor of the said retail outlet. In fact, the said Hari Singh Dhoor is working as an employee at the said retail outlet. On the other hand, Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, the learned counsel for the CBI, has contended that the trial court has merely reproduced the statement given by the petitioner under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein he himself claimed that he was no longer owner of the said retail outlet. In fact, he had sold the said retail outlet to Mr. Hari Singh Dhoor. Therefore, the observation made by the learned trial court is based on the statement of the petitioner himself. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after recording of the said statement of the petitioner, on the very next day, the petitioner has resiled from his statements. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is beyond a shadow of doubt that the IOC retail outlet is a company owned and company operated outlet. Therefore, it is for the company to decide whether, after the raid conducted on 11-9-2009, the petitioner should be allowed to operate the outlet or not? Moreover, whether after the statement of the petitioner, under section 161 Cr.P.C., he should be allowed to operate the outlet or not? As a matter of fact, during the course of trial, the learned trial court was justified in acting on the statement given by the petitioner himself. Hence, the learned trial court was certainly justified in observing that the said outlet is a company owned and company operated one. This court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
(3.) THEREFORE, the instant misc. petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.;