Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 125 (MP)

Sanjay Kumar v. State of M. P.

2015-02-02

D.K.PALIWAL

body2015
ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur on 26.3.2014, whereby the order of framing charge under section 3(2) read with section 7(1)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by JMFC, Mahidpur has been confirmed. 2. The fact in short are that on 1.5.2008, information was received by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mahidpur that wheat is being unloaded at Shakeel Body Builders Repairs shop situated at Eadgah, Ayodhyanagri. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Tahsildar, B.M. Joshi along with Assistant Supply officer reached Shakeel Body Builders Repairs shop and when they reached inside the shop, red wheat was kept in a bag of 90 k.g. and 30-40 bags were being unloaded from the truck bearing registration No. M.P.09-1872. Truck driver Mohammad Suleman disclosed that he is owner-cum-driver of the truck and he loaded 168 quintals of wheat from M/s. Bhagyalaxmi Traders, Neemuch and was going to deliver at Ambika Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad. Due to breakage of wheel of the truck, wheat was unloaded in the shop of Shakeel Body Builders Repairs Shop. Documents were seized from Suleman and it was found that red wheat which is meant for distribution through public distribution system is being transported and the act of M/s. Bhagyalaxmi traders and the truck driver found to be breach of M.P. Khadya Padarth Sarvajanik Nagrik Purti Scheme, 1991 which is punishable under section 3(7) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Complaint was lodged by Assistant Supply officer, Mahidpur at P.S. Mahidpur. After due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 3. Learned trial Court has framed the charges vide order dated 10.3.2010 under section 3(2) read with section 7(1)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, against which Criminal Revision No.192/2010 has been filed which has been dismissed. Being aggrieved, this petition has been preferred. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that learned Court below has wrongly framed the charge as there is no prima facie material against the petitioners. Even if, the allegations made in the complaint are taken at its face value believed to be true and correct in its entirely, the same do not disclose the commission of any offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Even if, the allegations made in the complaint are taken at its face value believed to be true and correct in its entirely, the same do not disclose the commission of any offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. There is no violation of the M.P. Food Stuffs (Distribution) Control Order 1960 and M.P. Food Stuff Sarvajanik Nagrik Purti Scheme, 1991. The proceedings in the complaint are nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is further submitted that there is no such rule or notification to the effect that red wheat or imported red wheat can only be sold and distributed from the warehouse or shop of public distribution system. Hence, prayed for quashing of the order impugned passed by the Court below. 5. Learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order submitting that prima facie the material collected during the investigation disclose the commission of offence by the petitioners. The impugned order do not require any interference by this Court. 6. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioners are not disputing that 168 quintals of wheat was entrusted by petitioner No.1 to petitioner No.2 for transporting from Neemuch and delivering the same to M/s. Ambika Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad. According to prosecution, red wheat which has been seized is imported by the Government and meant for distributing the same under various schemes of the Government like mid day meal etc. and is distributed through public distribution system and is not available in open market. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that wheat has been purchased in Krishi Upaj Mandi, Neemuch from various farmers and M/s. Bhagyalaxmi traders duly obtained permission from Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Neemuch for removing the said wheat out of the market yard and for transporting it to Hyderabad. 8. The prosecution has not filed any order or notification that the transportation of red wheat can only be permissible after getting license. 9. Rule 17 of M.P. Food Stuffs (Distribution) Control Order 1960 provides that when family card has been received in the name of head of the family, any member of the family is entitled to get the food stuffs under Government scheme from the fair price shop where the family card has been registered. 9. Rule 17 of M.P. Food Stuffs (Distribution) Control Order 1960 provides that when family card has been received in the name of head of the family, any member of the family is entitled to get the food stuffs under Government scheme from the fair price shop where the family card has been registered. It does not provide for requirement of any kind of license for the purpose of storage or transportation of wheat meant for supply under public distribution system. 10. No document has been brought on record to demonstrate that the wheat alleged to have been seized is imported wheat and can only be obtained through public distribution system and can be stored only in go-down or fair price shop supplying the wheat under public distribution system. 11. At the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, varacity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of section 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the fact emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed. 12. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao, 2012 AIR SCW 5139, the apex Court considered the scope of sections 227 and 228 of CrPC and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed. 13. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed. 13. Considering the material available on record, it is found that prima facie there is no material to frame the charge under section 3(2) read with section 7(1)(2) of Essential Commodities Act and in the opinion of this Court, learned Court below has committed illegality in framing the charges. Hence, the charges are liable to be quashed. 14. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is hereby set aside. Dilip Kshirsagar for petitioners; Mukesh Kumawat Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.