Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2260 (RAJ)

Nakshtra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-10-21

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 922/2006 arising out of the F.I.R. No. 280/2006, Police Station, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant and necessary for the disposal of the miscellaneous petition are set out as under : 3. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Tibbi filed an F.I.R. No. 280/2006 against the petitioner and two others namely Binder Singh alias Jaswinder Singh and Gurdeep Singh with the allegations that all the three were found carrying diesel measuring 1050 litres in five drums/cans on the ground that the Notification of the State Government dated 11.4.2005 permitted the possession of diesel measuring 1000 litres as being the limit within which one person could keep with him without procuring the licence. The proceeding under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act was initiated before the District Collector, Hanumangarh and whilst confiscating the diesel, the learned District Collector held that the diesel was being carried in different drums by four persons including the driver of the vehicle and that the vehicle was not liable to be confiscated. During course of the proceedings before the learned District Collector, the bills for purchase of the diesel from Aashakhera Filling Station were produced on record. 4. Be that as it may, the police filed the charge-sheet in the matter against the petitioner and two others on the ground that they were holding diesel beyond the permissible limit of 1000 litres. 5. Two co-accused Binder Singh alias Jaswindar Singh and Gurdeep Singh approached this Court by way of Miscellaneous Petitions No. 1748/2007 and 83/2008 and this Court held that each of the accused persons was individually possessing the diesel and as such diesel individually possessed by the accused was within the permissible limit of 1000 litres and accordingly the order taking cognizance against the aforesaid two accused persons was quashed. 6. 6. The petitioner, who is the third accused in the case, has now approached this Court by way of present miscellaneous petition for quashing of the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act against him. 7. This Court is of the opinion that the controversy in the matter no longer survives. This Court, in the aforesaid two miscellaneous petitions, has already held that each of the persons who has been found in Mahendra Jeep No. RJ-31G-624, was individually responsible for possession of the diesel according to the bills made available on record. The petitioner has produced the bill for purchase of 430 litres of diesel and as such the possession of the diesel by the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal and no licence was required for possession of 430 litres of diesel. 8. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 922/2006 arising out of the F.I.R. No. 280/2006, Police Station, Tibbi, taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******