Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1115 (MP)

Sharif Khan v. State of M. P.

2015-10-19

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under section 482 of CrPC invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR and criminal proceeding in connection with Crime No.5/2012 registered at Police Station, Nateran, District Vidisha for offence punishable under section 3//7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. The facts just necessary for the disposal of the petition are :- on 28.11.2011 at about 5:30 p.m., Junior Civil Supplies Officer Smt. Meena Soni Department of Food Inspected Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Nagpur and Kerosene Semi Whole Seller, Nagaur and found that 1700 liters kerosene has been misappropriated by black marketing. She submitted a report to the District Supplies Officer, Vidisha who in turn wrote a letter dated 19.12.2011 to the Police Station, Nateran for lodging the FIR against the Manager of the Society Sharif Khan, Assistant Manager of the Society Jaswant Singh and Salesman Pritam Singh for offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Collector, Vidisha, stating that the petitioner was on leave from 25 and 26 November, 2011. Following day was Sunday and inspection was conducted on 28.11.2011. On 29.11.2011 the petitioner had gone to attend the Court proceeding at Vidisha. On 30.11.2011 the petitioner lodged a report at Police Station Nateran. The registers were seized by the Food Inspector. The petitioner has been falsely implicated by the Food Inspector with ulterior motive. Collector through District Supply Officer issued a letter dated 8.12.2011 in which he has recommended to proceed against Assistant Manager Jaswant Singh and Salesman Pritam Singh but has not referred the name of the petitioner. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank has not leveled any allegations against the petitioner in his letter dated 16.12.2011, but recommended to proceed against the Assistant Manager Jaswant Singh and Salesman Pritam Singh. Food Inspector Smt. Meena Soni implicated the petitioner’s name subsequently. In the enquiry dated 29.11.2011 by the Bank Officer. It was held that the petitioner is not responsible for any irregularities. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner be discharged from the allegations. Copy of the FIR is Annexure P-1 and the letter dated 8.12.2011 and 16.12.2011 are Annexure P-2 and P-3. 4. In the enquiry dated 29.11.2011 by the Bank Officer. It was held that the petitioner is not responsible for any irregularities. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner be discharged from the allegations. Copy of the FIR is Annexure P-1 and the letter dated 8.12.2011 and 16.12.2011 are Annexure P-2 and P-3. 4. The petitioner further claimed that on 6.3.2000 in the presence of Collector, Vidisha, Food Officer, Managing Director Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank, Vidisha, President, Mahamantri and Koshadhyaksha of the Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, it was decided that in no inspection for criminal proceeding in connection with irregularities at the Fair Price shop run by the Samiti shall be initiated by the Food Inspector shall be conducted only after giving prior information to the concerned Bank and co-operative Department and it shall be conducted by joint inspection by the said authorities. Copy of order dated 6.3.2000 is Annexure P-4. This direction has not been followed in the present case. 5. The petitioner further claimed that the President of Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Nagaur has also sent a letter dated 1.2.2012 to the Collector District Vidisha whereby, it is requested to drop the proceeding against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid order dated 6.3.2000. This letter is dated 1.2.2012 (Annexure P-5). 6. In the light of the above the petitioner prays that proceeding of Criminal Case No.5/2012 registered at Police Station, Nateran be quashed on the ground that the petitioner is innocent. Collector, Vidisha vide order dated 8.12.2011 has not implicated the petitioner and recommended to proceed against the other persons Assistant Manager Jaswant Singh, Salesman Pritam Singh only. In the enquiry held on 29.11.2011 by the Officer of the Bank the petitioner was not held responsible for the irregularities. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that in the letter dated 16.11.2012 Zila Sahkari Bank addressed to the Branch Manager, Nateran has clearly mentioned that for the deficit of kerosene oil found in the Kerosene Whole Sale Shop by the society, Nagaur. Shri Jaswant Singh Manager and Pritam Singh Salesman are only responsible and it was requested to initiate action against them. It is to be noted here that the CEO has not mentioned the name of petitioner. Shri Jaswant Singh Manager and Pritam Singh Salesman are only responsible and it was requested to initiate action against them. It is to be noted here that the CEO has not mentioned the name of petitioner. In the meeting held on 6.3.2000 in the Chairmanship of Collector, Vidisha, it was decided that for any irregularities in the fair price shop run by the Primary Co-operative Societies when any action has to be initiated against the employee and any register was to be seized, such actions should be initiated with intimation to the concerning employer Bank and the co-operative department, so that, joint inspection can be made. The present inspection was made by Smt. Meena Soni, the Junior Supply Officer, does not seems to have complied the above order. 8. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the offence is registered under section 3/7 of EC Act, 1955. 9. Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order 1993 is not applicable in the State of M.P. 10. Inspection was conducted by Junior Civil Supplies Officer Nateran, Vidisha whereas inspection cannot be conducted by Officer below the rank of Assistant Food and Civil Supplies Officer. Order 18 of M.P. Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1979 provides that :- Powers of entry, search and seizure etc. - 1. Any Officer of - i. The Revenue Department, not below the rank of Naib Tahsildar; ii. The Food and Civil Supplies Department not below the rank of Assistant Food and Civil Supplies Inspector; iii. The Police Department, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector. iv. - 1. Any Officer of - i. The Revenue Department, not below the rank of Naib Tahsildar; ii. The Food and Civil Supplies Department not below the rank of Assistant Food and Civil Supplies Inspector; iii. The Police Department, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector. iv. The Transport Department, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector; authorized by the State Government in this behalf may - (a) Enter, inspect or break open and search any place or premises, vehicle or vessel in which he has reason to believe that any contravention of the provisions of this order or of the conditions of any license issued thereunder, has been, is being or is about to be committed; (b) Require the owner, occupier or any other person in charge of any premises, vehicle or vessel in which he has reason to believe that any contravention of this order has been, is being or is about to be committed to produce any books, accounts or other records showing transactions relating to such contravention; (c) Take or case to be taken extracts from or copies of any document showing transaction relating to such contravention which are produced before him; (d) Search, seize and remove stocks of kerosene and the animals, vehicles or other conveyances used in carrying the said kerosene in contraventions of the provisions of this order or of the conditions of the licence issued thereunder and thereafter take or authorize the taking of all measures necessary for securing the production of stocks of kerosene and the animals, vehicles, vessels or other conveyances so seized, before the Court and for their safe custody pending such production. 11. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on “Vimla Devi v. State of M.P. [2009(1) EFR 603], in which it has been held that Essential Commodities Act, 1955, section 3/7 - accused involved for offence under section 3/7 Act for transporting wheat in the Flour Mill for black marketing - no evidence on record to prove-merely being a President of that institution, she cannot be held responsible for the offence - petition allowed. 12. Therefore, the Junior Civil Supplies Officer is not entitled to conduct the inspection. In the notification published in M.. 12. Therefore, the Junior Civil Supplies Officer is not entitled to conduct the inspection. In the notification published in M.. Gazette dated 22.2.1980 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-clause (1) of clause (18) of M.P. Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1979, the State Government has authorized the officer specified in column (2) of the table to exercise powers conferred under the said clause within the limits of jurisdictions specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) in which the Junior Food and Civil Supplies Officer does not find place. 13. On the above premises, this petition is allowed and Crime No.5/2012 registered at Police Station, Nateran, District Vidisha for offence punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is hereby quashed as regarding the applicant Sharif Khan only. It is made clear that as regarding Jaswant Singh and Pritam Singh no order has been passed by this Court. VKB .............