Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 553 (PNJ)

Yogesh Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2002-05-17

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2002
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashment of F.I.R. No. 297 dated October 17, 1992 (Annexure P1), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, Indian Penal Code, and 7, 10, 55 of the Essential Commodities Act, registered at Police Station Gharaunda, District Karnal, and all the subsequent proceedings undertaken pursuant to the registration of the F.I.R. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Suraj Bhan, who was the owner of Gharaunda Gas Service, Gharaunda, died on July 22, 1992, leaving behind his widow and children. After his death his widow took charge of the business and was managing the affairs of Gharaunda Gas Service. Petitioner No. 1 is stated to be a distant relation of Suraj Bhan and had nothing to do with the said Gas Agency. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are stated to be the employees of the Gas Agency. 3. On October 17, 1992 one Bajrang Lal, Inspector, Food & Supplies Department, Karnal along with one Bhaiya Ram, Inspector, raided the premises of the Gharaunda Gas Agency and found some violation of the rules. As per allegations in the F.I.R., 11 filled up gas cylinders and 7 empty cylinders were found to be less on physical verification. Secondly, the gas cylinders were found to be under-weight. The F.I.R. (Annexure P1) was recorded on the basis of the complaint with regard to the said allegations. 4. On completion of the investigation, the Police filed a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., in the Court of Special Judge, Karnal, who vide order dated April 27, 1994, charge-sheeted the petitioners. A copy of the charge- sheet is at Annexure P2. 5. Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, has firstly argued that the complaint should have been filed as per the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988, and the Inspector (Food & Supplies) was not empowered to conduct raid or check, premises of the petitioner. He further argued that there was no notification by the Central Government and, therefore, the raid is vitiated, having been conducted by a person not competent to do so. 6. He further argued that there was no notification by the Central Government and, therefore, the raid is vitiated, having been conducted by a person not competent to do so. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana has brought my attention to the notification dated 8, 1989 (Annexure R-I), which is an order issued under the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988, whereby the Food & Supplies Inspectors of the Food & Supplies Department are competent to file the complaint. Thus, I find no force in this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. The second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the present case the weighment of the cylinders has been done by the Inspector, Food & Supplies, whereas as per Section 72 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, it is the Director of Meteorology, who alone is competent to weigh the cylinders. 8. The aforesaid argument has been controverted by the counsel appearing for the State, who has argued that the Inspector, Food & Supplies, is competent to conduct the inspection. Moreover, the provisions of the standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, cannot be attracted, when the act of the petitioners is a substantive offence under the Essential Commodities Act. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that there has been a contravention of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988. 10. I do not want to give any finding on this issue at this stage because any finding from this Court would vitiate the trial. It is pertinent to mention that in the present case the challan has been filed and the charges have been framed. The case is fixed for the evidence of the prosecution. The petitioners have not challenged the framing of the charges against them under Sections 420, Indian Penal Code, and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In the absence of the challenge to the same, the present F.I.R. cannot be quashed. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete the same, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition dismissed.