Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1244 (MP)

Narottam Singh Tomer v. State of M. P.

2013-10-11

D.K.PALIWAL

body2013
JUDGMENT : This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal complaint pending before J.M.F.C. Ambah District Morena in case no. 269/08 and also quashing the F.I.R. registered at Crime No. 23/08 for the offence punishable under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955. 2. The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner is president of Jai Girraj Prathmik Upbhokta Bhandar who is running the fair price shop under the provision of M.P. Khadya Pradarth Sarvjanik Nagrik Poorti Scheme. It is alleged that the complainant S. N. Verma was posted as Kanishth Apurti Adhikarai Amhabh. On 12.02.2008 complainant along with S.D.M. Ambah came to inspect the distribution of kerosene at Porsa. Rakesh Prajapati met in front of Police Station carrying 100 liters of kerosene oil in two canes. On interrogation Rakesh Prajapati disclosed that Narottam Singh Tomar, who is the President of Jai Girraj Prathmik Bhandar, Porsa has entrusted him to keep it for illegal sale. The kerosene oil was seized and was given on Supurdgi to Surendra Singh, Manager Lead Sanstha, Porsa and report was lodged at Police Station Porsa, whereby Crime No.23/08 under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been registered against the petitioner. After due investigation the Charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Ambah. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that nowhere it is mentioned in the F.I.R. that which of the control order has been violated. Therefore, the action of the respondent is contrary to law and deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that the kerosene oil has not been seized from the petitioner's fair price shop. The petitioner is not at all liable for the alleged seizure from Rakesh Kumar. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is abuse of process of law and it is prayed that the proceeding pending in Case No.269/08 as well as proceeding initiated on the basis of F.I.R. registered at Crime No. 23/08 be quashed. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent/ State has submitted that after due investigation Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and there is prima facie violation of provision of Essential Commodities Act. Hence, proceeding cannot be quashed. 5. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent/ State has submitted that after due investigation Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and there is prima facie violation of provision of Essential Commodities Act. Hence, proceeding cannot be quashed. 5. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The F.I.R. reveals that one Rakesh Prajapati was found carrying kerosene oil and on interrogation he disclosed that the same has been entrusted to him by the petitioner for illegal sale. 7. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, which provides asunder. :- “7. Penalties.- (1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section3,- (a) he shall be punishable (i) in the case of any order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and (ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine; [Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months;] (b) any property in respect of which the order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Government; (c ) any package, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the commodity shall, if the court so orders, be forfeited to the Government. 8. Thus, bare perusal of the Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, makes it crystal clear that when there is a violation of any “order” regarding any essential commodity, then the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 may apply. 9. This Court in the matter of Hema Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2008(1) EFR 198, has held that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner regarding inspection of petrol pump without mentioning violation of any order under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 10. State of M.P., reported in 2008(1) EFR 198, has held that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner regarding inspection of petrol pump without mentioning violation of any order under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Harayana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 laid down the principal of law enunciated in series of decisions relating to exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and formulated the guidelines observing as under:- “This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only anon-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specified provisions in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 11. As noticed here in above it is not prima facie found that petitioner has violated any “Order” under section 3 the of Essential Commodities Act 1955 therefore he can not be punished under section 7 of the of Essential Commodities Act1955. The present case is covered under the guidelines no.-1 of Bhajanlal's case(supra). Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 12. Consequently the petition is allowed. The criminal complaint pending before J.M.F.C. Ambah District Morena in case no. 269/08 and also F.I.R. registered at Crime No. 23/08 for the offence punishable under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955 is hereby quashed.