JUDGMENT 1. 1. These six bail petitions (ut supra) seeking relief for grant of anticipatory bail have been moved by different sets of petitioners who are accused of the alleged s punishable tinder Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955 and for alleged violation of the provisions, of the Cement (Quality Control) Order, 1962, in four different sets of FIRs registered at Police Station Behror (Dist. Alwar). 2. Since common question of law is involved, therefore with the consent of the parties and for their convenience, these bail petitions have been heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioners are dealing in manufacturing cement; the industrial unit premises of the petitioners were inspected by the Enforcement Officer and the cement manufactured by the petitioners was confiscated by the Enforcement Officer. It has been alleged that after inspection it was found that the cement did not have I S I. certification marks in as much as the petitioners were not having licence as was required under the Indian Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Act, 1952, (for short, ISI Act) contravention of which as well as the Cement (Quality Control) Order, 1962 (for brevity, 'Control Order') issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is an punishable under that Act, 1955. On the reports lodged by the Enforcement Officer, Behror, criminal cases for the offences under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 have been registered at Police Station Behror against the petitioners in these bail petitions. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the report lodged by the Enforcement Officer it has not at all been alleged that the cement manufactured in the industrial unit of the petitioners was not of prescribed standard. Learned counsel added that in the instant case, the prosecution should have alleged that the cement in question was not only (not) having I.S.I. certification marks but also was not of prescribed standard. According to the petitioners one of the ingredients of the alleged against them is missing. 6. Next limb of the arguments urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the vires of Control Order are under challenge in a writ petition pending before this Court at Jodhpur. According to the petitioners one of the ingredients of the alleged against them is missing. 6. Next limb of the arguments urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the vires of Control Order are under challenge in a writ petition pending before this Court at Jodhpur. Moreover, according to them, the cement in question is not alleged to have been kept, stored or manufactured for the purposes of sale. 7. Then, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though at the relevant time, the petitioners were not having licence under the I.S.I. Act, and I.S.I. certification marks under the Control Order, but the same were obtained subsequently in as much as for I.S.I. certification marks the petitioners have been exempted by the competent authority. In this view of the matter. according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no is committed by the petitioners. Some documents have been filed on behalf of the petitioners in order to show that application for getting licence under the I.S.I. Act was filed and was pending at the crucial time. Documents have also been filed on the point of I.S.T. certification marks. 8. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no investigation is to be made from the petitioners and their arrest is not warranted for investigation purposes and further more, the petitioners had no mensrea of whatsoever kind. 9. Learned Public Prosecutors on the other hand vociforcely opposed the bail petitions. 10. Before considering the submissions made at the bar, I would like to quote Statement of Objects & Reasons from the I.S.I. Act - "As a pre-requisite to the establishment of a healthy trade, both internal and external, standardisation of products in respect of quality which would compare very favourably with the established makes of foreign products, is essential and needs no emphasis. With this object in view the Government of India in their Department of Industries and Supplies in their Resolution No. I Std. (4) 45, dated the 3rd September, 1946 set up the Indian Standards Institution with inter alia the following functions:- (a) to prepare and promote the general adoption of standards on national and international basis. (b) to promote standardisation, quality, control and simplification in industry. (c) to provide for registration of standardisation marks applicable to products, commodities, etc. (d) to provide or arrange facilities for the examination and testing of commodities etc. (b) to promote standardisation, quality, control and simplification in industry. (c) to provide for registration of standardisation marks applicable to products, commodities, etc. (d) to provide or arrange facilities for the examination and testing of commodities etc. The Indian Standards Institution have drawn up or are now finalising the Indian Standards Specifications for most of the commodities and manufactured articles which figure in our export trade with overseas countries and also in the home markets." "Amending Act. 1961-Experience of working of the Indian Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Act, 1952 during the last five years revealed the need to amend it in certain respects. The definition of 'Indian Standard' in Section 2 of the Act, as it stands, does not permit standard marks being prescribed for an article or a process in respect of which the Indian Standards Institution itself has not established standards. It has been found desirable to allow Standard Marks being prescribed for articles or processes in respect of which the Indian Standards Institution has not established its own standards but has recognised standards established by others. It is proposed to achieve this object by appropriately amending the definition of `,Indian Standard". It is further proposed to include a provision in the Act declaring the Inspectors appointed thereunder as public servants within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code in order to give them legal protection in the discharge of their duties. Opportunity is also being taken to extend the provisions of the Act to the State of Jammu & Kashmir." 11. Having benefitted by the enlightments derived from the Statements of Objects & Reasons of the I.S.I. Act. I condense that the Certification Mark is a convenient measure to secure standardisation of commodities, and according to the Trade Marks Act it is a mark adapted in relation to any goods to distinguish in the course of trade goods certified by any person in respect of origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy or other characteristic from goods not so certified. 12. Now I quote clause (3) of the Control Order- "3 Prohibition of manufacture sale, etc. of cement which is not of the prescribed standard. 12. Now I quote clause (3) of the Control Order- "3 Prohibition of manufacture sale, etc. of cement which is not of the prescribed standard. No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf, manufacture or store for sale, sell or distribute any cement which is not of the prescribed standard." The quoted clause (3) of the Control Order was substituted under the Cement (Quality Control) Amendment Rules, 1983 by following extraction- "(3). Prohibition to manufacture, sale etc. of cement which is not of prescribed standard. No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture or store for sale, sell or distribute cement which does not conform to the prescribed standard and which do not bear the ISI certification mark." 13. On a careful look at the provisions of the Control Order as amended in 1983, as well as the ISI Act, it is emphatically clear that these provisions are beneficial to public at large and it conveys this assurance to the purchaser that the goods or services so certified have been inspected, tested and certified by some agency of competence and that they may be purchased with more than ordinary assurance that certain standards of quality have been met. And, by Amendment of Control Order in 1983, the Govt. of India obviously intended that the consumer of cement should be supplied with good quality of cement. 14. Under clause (3) of the Control Order, 1962 it was made obligatory on the part of the person manufacturing or storing for sale, selling or distributing any cement that the cement should be of prescribed standards. But, probably the Central Government felt it essential that since the consumer being a layman cannot ascertain themselves that the cement which they are purchasing is of prescribed standards so it revealed to amend the same. Thus, the amendment was made and it was made obligatory that the cement should not only be of prescribed standards but should also bear ISI certification mark so as to convey this assurance to the purchaser that after such certification mark, the cement is of good quality. Thus, the amendment was made and it was made obligatory that the cement should not only be of prescribed standards but should also bear ISI certification mark so as to convey this assurance to the purchaser that after such certification mark, the cement is of good quality. I am therefore of the opinion that the compliance of the ISI Act and the Control Order 1962 amended and substituted by Cement (Quality Control) Order, 1983 is mandatory, and non-compliance of it has been lodged by the Enforcement Officer, Behror and complaint of which has been made against the present petitioners in six bail petitions under different first information reports at police station Behror where the cases have been registered against the petitioners either being Director or other Office bearers of their respective industrial concern units, alleging inter-alia therein that they should be held responsible for the s punishable under Section 3/7 with the aid of Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. 15. As said earlier, I have perused the documents filed on behalf of the petitioners and specially the copy of application filed to obtain licence under the ISI Act, 1952 so also the copy of letter from Dy. Director. Bureau of Indian Standards. and few documents pertaining to the exemption in getting ISI - certification mark. I may state that the documents pertaining exemption etc. are of a particular period but not of the period when the inspection was made by the Enforcement Officer. 16. At this stage, I do not express any opinion on the merits of the case as well as on the documents produced by the petitioners. On the evidentiary material as it stands on the record, during the inspection by the Enforcement Officer, Behror, of the respective industrial units of the petitioners, the petitioners had no statutory licence and the cement did not have ISI certification marks while manufacturing it. Suffice it to say that at this stage, the petitioners failed to show that they had complied with the provisions of Cement (Quality Control) Order as well as the ISI Act, 1952. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the accusation against the petitioners is false or that the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the accusation against the petitioners is false or that the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice. There is nothing to show that the accusation against the petitioners has been made with some ulterior motive with the object to humiliate them by having them arrested; neither is there any allegation of any political antagonism. Moreso, the evidentiary material on the records discloses that the petitioners contravened the mandatory provisions of the beneficial legislations for public at large. Unquestionably, no case is made out for anticipatory bail in these six petitions and adopting from the decision in Pokar Ram v. State (1985 Cr. L. J. 1175) status in life, affluence or otherwise are hardly relevant considerations in cases of anticipatory bail looking to the seriousness of the proposed accusation. 17. Thus, for reasons stated (ut supra), I must say that there are no compelling circumstances made out for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Consequently, I am not prone to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners whose bail petitions are liable to be rejected. Accordingly these six bail petitions are dismissed.Bail Applications Dismissed. *******