Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 678 (MP)

Ajij Khan v. State of M. P.

2002-07-17

N.S.AZAD

body2002
JUDGMENT After remaining unsuccessful in their Criminal Revision bearing No. 66/2002, which stood disposed of by Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal, on 29th April, 2002, wherein, the petitioners challenged the order dated 4.12.2001, whereby, the learned C.J.M. Bhopal, explained the particulars of offences in criminal case No. 4709/2002, to theses petitioners for offences punishable u/s. 3 R/w. Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the petitioners seek exercise of inherent powers for quashment of proceeding in Cri. Case No. 4709/02 As per prosecution, on 9th Feb. 2001, Clime No. 12/2001, stood registered against these petitioners at P.S. Sukili Semaiya, Bhopal, for offences punishable D/s. 3 R/w. Section 7 of the Act, on these facts that on the same day, after obtaining the issue of 12,000 litres of diesel, valued at Rs. 2,24,301/- from Indian Oil Depot, Nishatpura, Bhopal. which was loaded in Tanker No. M.P.04/K-2522, with an invoice in the name of Patel Auto Services, Sehore, this tanker with aforesaid loaded diesel, was seized on Bhopal- Vidisha Road in the area of Sukhi-Semaiya police station, which was being taken to Dholakhedi for being delivered at Dholakhedi Auto service Station, owned by one Brijesh Sharma. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if at all the case of the prosecution is taken to be true, it at the most amounts to preparation, which is not punishable D/s. 3 R/w. section 7 of the Act, and hence the petitioners are entitled for discharge by quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4709/02, which are pending against them in the Court of C.J.M. Bhopal. In support of this argument, Court's attention is drawn to Malkiat Singh and another v. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1970 SC 713 , and Sheikh Ahmed Hussain and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1991 CrLJ page 2303. It is laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, (supra) that-. "If a man buys a box of matches, he cannot be convicted of attempted arson, however clearly it may be proved that he intended to set fire to a haystack at the time of purchase. It is laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, (supra) that-. "If a man buys a box of matches, he cannot be convicted of attempted arson, however clearly it may be proved that he intended to set fire to a haystack at the time of purchase. Nor can he be convicted of this offence if he approaches the stack with the matches in his pocket, but if he bends down near the stack and lights a match which he extinguishes on perceiving that he is being watched, he may be guilty of an attempt to bum it. " The same proposition of law is found explained in Sheikh Ahmad Hussain and Anr. (supra) also, wherein, in para 6 at page 2305, it has been dictated that - "The principle enunciated by Khatri, .J. in that case very clear1y amplifies the point that before an accusation can be levelled under the provisions of S. 11 of the Act, it must be demonstrated that the accused persons had been abetting the actual act of slaughter of one of the prohibited categories of animals. As far as the attempt is concerned have been taken, such as taking the animal to a slaughter house or to a place for slaughter, bringing implements necessary for this purpose and such other activities that would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused were engaged in an attempt, which, if not stopped, would have resulted in the slaughter." As per first information report of Crime No. 12/2002, which stood registered against these petitioners at Police Station Sukhi Semaiya, on 9.2.2001, for offences punishable U/s. 3 R/w. section 7 of the Act, the issue of seized diesel was obtained for being transported to Patel Auto Service, Sehore, whereas, the same was found of being transported to Dholakhedi, situated on Bhopal Vidisha Road. It is also found stated in this FIR. that on being asked, the driver of the tanker informed that the diesel is being transported for being delivered at Dholakhedi Auto Service Station, owned by Brijesh Sharma. For a decision on this point as to whether the act of the petitioners amounts to preparation only or attempt, the appreciation of evidence is required, which is not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. Secondly, after remaining unsuccessful in their Cri. Rev. For a decision on this point as to whether the act of the petitioners amounts to preparation only or attempt, the appreciation of evidence is required, which is not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. Secondly, after remaining unsuccessful in their Cri. Rev. No. 66/2002, the petitioners have approached this Court for exercise of inherent powers, which in fact is a second revision in the garb of petition u/s. 482 of the CrPC and hence, no interference in exercise of inherent powers is called for in this case. In result, the petition does not merit, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected at the stage of motion hearing.