Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1991 (RAJ)

Sriram Desals v. State of Raj.

2012-09-20

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2012
Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—By this misc. petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 17.1.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa whereby he has framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. He has also challenged the order dated 27.4.2004 whereby the revision filed by him, against the order of learned Magistrate, has been dismissed. 2. A complaint came to be filed by one Harkesh Meena, Enforcement Officer, District Supply Officer, Dausa before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa which was registered as case no.155/2000. After recording of the statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate issued process and summoned the petitioner. Thereafter, on 17.1.2004, the arguments on charge were heard and the learned Magistrate decided to frame charge against the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner had preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, but without any success as the same came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa. Hence, the present misc. petition has been preferred by the accused petitioners seeking to challenge the aforesaid orders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner had already applied for license on 6.5.1997 and had deposited the fee of Rs.25/- vide challan No.342 of even date. But the licensing authority had neither granted the license nor disposed of the application filed by the petitioner for seeking license. He has also submitted that the license is granted for five years. In other words, if the license had been granted to the petitioner in the year 1997 then the same would have been valid up-to the year 2002. The instant inspection of the petitioner firm was done on 19.11.1999. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that soon after the inspection conducted by the Inspector, the petitioner had further pursued his application for grant of license and the same was granted to him on 27.11.1999. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Murarilal Jhunjhunwala vs. State of Bihar & others- AIR 1991 SC 515 . In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Murarilal Jhunjhunwala vs. State of Bihar & others- AIR 1991 SC 515 . He has also placed reliance on the case of Indexport Ltd. and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others- 1994 Cr.L.J. 838 and the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Champalal- 2002(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 55 = RLW 2003(3) Raj. 1495. Another submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the District Collector, Dausa, in the proceedings under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, gave his judgment on 25.4.2000, after taking into consideration the aforesaid facts in respect of the petitioner having applied for license earlier to the inspection and that he was granted subsequently, thought it proper to drop the said proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Ram Ratan Arawal and another vs. State of Bihar and another- 1985 EFR 517 and Lal Chand and another vs. The State of Bihar- 1990 EFR 551. 4. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor has supported the judgment passed by the learned courts below and submitted that the order of framing charge is in accordance to law and based on facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material on record. 5. After having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the rival parties and on careful perusal of the impugned orders passed by the courts below, this court is of the view that the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners has force. The instant case is one where it would be just and proper for this court to exercise its inherent powers as envisaged under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. The undisputed facts of the present case are that the petitioner had applied for license on 6.5.1997 and had also deposited the requisite fee. Thereafter, the inspection was conducted by the Inspector on 19.11.1999. The petitioner had been granted license on 27.11.1999. The District Collector, Dausa in the proceedings under Sec. 6A of the Essential Commo-dities Act had held that the petitioner had applied for license under the Order of 1987 and had also deposited the fee prior to the date of inspection. Thereafter, the inspection was conducted by the Inspector on 19.11.1999. The petitioner had been granted license on 27.11.1999. The District Collector, Dausa in the proceedings under Sec. 6A of the Essential Commo-dities Act had held that the petitioner had applied for license under the Order of 1987 and had also deposited the fee prior to the date of inspection. On the said premise, the learned District Collector had dropped the proceedings under Sec. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. Amongst the aforesaid judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer to the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Murarilal Jhunjhunwala (supra) and the relevant extract is as under: “Technically, the authorities may be justified in prosecuting the appellant for carrying on the business without obtaining the licence. But the facts of the case reveal that the appellant is not to be blamed. If there is anybody to be blamed in this case it is only the Licensing Authority who has failed to perform its statutory duties. The appellant has done all that he could do under the law. He has not been told at any time that he is required to do anything more than what he has already done. For successive four years the Licensing Authority went on accepting the application for licence with the necessary licence fees, and at no time it denied the claim of the appellant. Its silence seems to demonstrate the total lack of awareness to the rights of the appellant. To cover up its own inaction and lethargic attitude, it seems to have directed the prosecution of the appellant. The attitude of the Licencing Authority is beyond our compensation. It is arbitrary on the fact of it and unjustified on every aspect of it. We fail to understand why the appellant should be prosecuted when he on his part has done everything for obtaining the Licence. The appellant was legitimately entitled to the licence which has been unreasonably withheld from him. It is arbitrary on the fact of it and unjustified on every aspect of it. We fail to understand why the appellant should be prosecuted when he on his part has done everything for obtaining the Licence. The appellant was legitimately entitled to the licence which has been unreasonably withheld from him. It would be indeed wrong on the part of the Licensing Authority to prosecute the appellant." Similarly, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has reiterated the said principle of law in the case of Indexport Ltd. and another (supra) and has quashed the FIR holding that no offence is said to have been committed by the accused petitioner. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Champalal (supra), the learned Single Judge of this court had held that the accused had already applied for the license and as such he had been rightly acquitted by the trial court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan was dismissed. 6. In so far as the question with regard to the decision given by Collector, Dausa, under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, this court is of the view that the same does have material bearing on the criminal proceedings which had also been initiated on the inspection conducted by the Inspector of the department. The learned District Collector, Dausa, after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact with regard to the application having been filed by the petitioner seeking license; the same having been kept pending for a long time and the inspection had been done within the said period, thought it proper to drop the proceedings under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. The aforesaid judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner also supports the contention raised by him and has held that in case the proceedings under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act have been dropped, then there is no justification in continuing the criminal proceedings against the same person on account of the inspection made by the inspector of the department. 7. 7. In view of above, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned courts below have not taken into consideration the aforesaid material facts of the present case, namely; the petitioner had already applied for license as well as deposited the fee for the same and that on the said application he was granted the license soon after the day on which the inspection was conducted. Further, that the department had also dropped the proceedings under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act which was basis of the same inspection which was conducted by the Inspector. Therefore, it is deemed just and proper and in the interest of justice that this court should exercise inherent power so as to prevent the abuse of the process of the court by quashing the impugned orders whereby the charges have been framed against the petitioners. 8. Consequently, this misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.1.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa and 27.4.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is discharged of the charges levelled against him in criminal case no. 155/2000 pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa.