Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 542 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Madan Lal

2003-04-10

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the order dated 1.4.1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner in Case No. 3/90 by which he accepted the application filed by the accused respondents under section 458 Cr.PC. and discharged accused respondents for the offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `"the EC Act"). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on receipt of secret information, the SHO, Police Station Naya Sahar alongwith police party reached the house of Shri Dev Kishan S/o Shri Laduram on 16.7.1990 at 11.00 PM and recovered 240 bags of Government cement. At the time of search, it was found that the accused respondent No. 1 Madan Lal was shielding/covering the aforesaid cement. Upon asking, he said that the aforesaid cement was got issued by the Contractor Shri Suraj Narayan Vyas (accused respondent No. 2) from Government (PWD) store for construction of Generator Room at Hema and Hemgiri for flood lighting of B.S.R. works and he further said that he was authorised by the contractor to store the same at his house but since there was no spare space in contractor house to store the above cement, that is why he stored the cement in Shri Dev Kishan's house who was said to be relative of contractor. 3. Thereafter, the SHO, Police Station Naya Sahar seized the aforesaid 240 bags of cement and registered the case for the offence under sections 3/7 of the EC Act and 406 IPC. 4. After usual investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the offence under section 406 IPC was not made out, but offence punishable under section 3/7 of the EC Act was made out and therefore, police filed challan for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act against the accused respondents in the Court of Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner. 5. During the pendency of that criminal case, on 4.10.1990, the accused respondents filed an application under section 258 Cr.PC. before the Court of Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner with the prayer that no case even for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act was made out against the accused respondents and therefore, they should be discharged. 6. During the pendency of that criminal case, on 4.10.1990, the accused respondents filed an application under section 258 Cr.PC. before the Court of Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner with the prayer that no case even for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act was made out against the accused respondents and therefore, they should be discharged. 6. The learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner through impugned order dated 1.4.1991 allowed the said application filed under section 258 Cr.PC. by the accused respondents and discharged them of the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act holding inter - alia that the order under which the cement in question was seized had already been revoked and cancelled by the Government of Rajasthan through order No.F17(49)Kha.V/Vidhi/47 - ll SO 62 dated 20th July, 1989. 7. Aggrieved from the said order dated 1.4.1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this revision petition. 8. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the accused respondents and gone through the record of the case. 9. I have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner, which is detailed and speaking one. The learned Special Judge has given cogent reasons while discharging the accused respondents for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act. It does not appear that any illegality has been committed by the learned Special Judge in discharging the accused respondents for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act. 10. Apart from this, judgment dated 15.11.1990 passed by the learned Collector, Bikaner in EC Act Case No. 7/90 is also on the file which reveals that the learned Collector, Bikaner on an application filed by the accused respondent No. 2 Suraj Narayan Vyas released 240 bags of cement to him holding that in keeping them no offence was committed under the provisions of the EC Act and the learned Collector has also placed reliance on the order dated 20.7.1989 passed by the State of Rajasthan. From this point of view also, the impugned order cannot be challenged. 11. From this point of view also, the impugned order cannot be challenged. 11. Thus, no interference is called for with the impugned order dated 1.4.1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Bikaner and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, this revision petition filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******