Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 984 (PNJ)

Des Raj v. State of Haryana

2000-08-24

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
ORDER K.S. Kumaran, J. - FIR No. 209 dated 8.7.2000 under Section 420 Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 10 and 15 of the Essential Commodities Act, has been registered at police station, Mujessar, Faridabad. The material allegations found in the FIR are as follows :- 2. A.S.I. along with three constables was present at Sohana road point, when he received the information that petitioner-Des Raj, who is a Government Depot Holder and has been supplied blue coloured kerosene oil under the public distribution system by the Food and Supplies Department for distribution to the public against ration cards at Rs. 6/- per litre, mixes chemical and powder containing chemical with the blue oil, converts the same into colourless oil and sells it in open market at the rate of Rs. 14/- per litre. It is further alleged that the A.S.I. was also informed that petitioner-Des Raj and his servant Mohd. Munis are converting blue colour oil into colourless oil by mixing chemical and powder, outside the village Gonchi. 3. As per the FIR, A.S.I. informed the D.F.S.C. Faridabad, who appointed Mr. P.D. Sharma, F.S.O. and Brahm Parkash Yadav, Director, Food and Supplies Department. They were also included in the raiding party, which raided the place mentioned by the informer. A person who was pouring and re-pouring the oil, and the other person who was mixing the oil in the half filled drums were successful in fleeing away on seeing the police party. But the informer identified the person who was pouring the oil as the petitioner-Des Raj and the person who mixing as Mohd. Munis. As per the FIR 14 drums each containing 150 litres of blue oil, a plastic drum containing 10 litres of blue oil, an iron drum containing 100 litres of white kerosene oil, 11 drums containing 200 litres of white oil made from blue oil, one plastic drum half filled with chemical powder, one plastic can containing as acid type of chemical, two measures of two litres and five litres each, one iron gauge and iron keef were recovered. Samples were also taken. 4. The petitioners application for bail in anticipation of arrest was dismissed by the Special Judge, Faridabad, and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code for the same relief. 5. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the record. 6. Samples were also taken. 4. The petitioners application for bail in anticipation of arrest was dismissed by the Special Judge, Faridabad, and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code for the same relief. 5. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a ration depot holder which is one kilometre away from the place of alleged recovery. He also contends that near the alleged place of recovery there are two ration depots at a distance of stones throw, one belonging to Rakesh and the other belonging to Udham Singh. He further contends that Rakesh has licence for both colourless oil and the blue coloured oil. 7. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Food and Supplies Department places indents with the wholesale dealers and on such indents kerosene oil is loaded in tankers. According to him, the Inspector of Food and Supplies Department accompanies the tankers and distributes the same to various depot holders, checks the stock register as well as the stock, and signs the registers at the time of making supplies. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioners stock register was checked on 21.6.2000 when 1570 litres of blue coloured oil were supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner has also produced the copy of the stock register to show the same. 8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no oil was supplied to the petitioner after 21.6.2000, whereas the raid was conducted on 8.7.2000 without associating any dependent witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that there is no complaint whatsoever against the petitioner, who is running the depot for the last about 15 years. 9. He further contends that the alleged recovery was made from open space and not from godown of the petitioner. Pointing out these factors, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 10. As against this, the learned counsel for the State contends that 2500 litres of blue coloured oil were issued to the petitioner on 23.6.2000 and, therefore, the contention that there was no supply after 21.6.2000 is not correct. Pointing out these factors, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 10. As against this, the learned counsel for the State contends that 2500 litres of blue coloured oil were issued to the petitioner on 23.6.2000 and, therefore, the contention that there was no supply after 21.6.2000 is not correct. According to the learned counsel for the State, when the raid was conducted on 8.7.2000, the petitioner was not at the depot, and no kerosene oil was available, whereas the copy of the despatch register of the wholesale dealer shows that 2500 litres were supplied to the petitioner. He also contends that there is no entry in the stock register of the petitioner. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the State contends that custody of the petitioner is necessary. He also contends that Mohd. Munis, who was arrested later on had stated that he was working with the petitioner. 11. But the learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contends that no oil will be unloaded unless the Inspector of Food and Supplies Department signs the register, after checking the stocking register. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has not received any supply on 23.6.2000. But, we find that as per the allegations in the F.I.R. the petitioner and another were found at the place from where the blue colour oil, the colourless oil and certain chemicals were recovered. The check was made on secret information. The petitioner and another who were at the place of recovery had fled away from that place. According to the F.I.R. the petitioner was pouring and re-pouring the oil, while the other person was mixing the same. It may be that the alleged recovery was not made from the shop of the petitioner, but, from the open space. But, the informer had identified the petitioner who was pouring and re-pouring of oil while the other was mixing it. Whether 2500 litres of oil were supplied on 21.6.2000 or not, and whether it would make any difference has to be considered and decided at the time of the trial only, inasmuch as the petitioner was found to be converting the blue coloured oil into colourless oil, and had even run away from the place on seeing the police party. 12. 12. So far as the competency of the A.S.I. to conduct raid is concerned, the F.I.R. itself shows that the A.S.I. had informed the D.F.S.C. Faridabad, who appointed Mr. P.D. Sharma, F.S.O. and also Brahmparkash Yadav, Director of Food and Supplies Department, who were also included in the raiding party, Clause 11 of the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality Order, 1977, shows that the Director, the District Magistrate or the Inspector or any Police Officer not below the rank of Sub Inspector may inspect and conduct the search. Sub-clause (f) of Clause 2 of the above said order describes the Inspector as Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, and Inspector Food and Supplies or any other Officer appointed by the Government for carrying out the purpose of the order. Therefore, the search and seizure cannot be faulted on this ground. 13. In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I find that there are no grounds for granting bail in anticipation of arrest to the petitioner inasmuch as custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in this case. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.