Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1107 (MP)

Ramsiya Chourasiya v. State of M. P.

2016-12-05

S.K.AWASTHI

body2016
ORDER 1. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, the 'CrPC') has been invoked for seeking quashing of FIR No.18/2011 registered at Police Station Bharoli, District Bhind (MP) alleging commission of offences punishable under section 3 read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in Short, 'EC Act'). 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present application are that the Authority empowered to carry out inspection of the fair price shops allotted under the Madhya Pradesh (Khadya Padaarth) Saarvjanik Naagrik Poorti Vitran Scheme, 1991 (in short, 'Scheme of 1991'), conducted an enquiry as to the manner of distribution carried out by the present applicant who is the Secretary in Sewa Sahkari Sanstha, Bharoli Khurd and against one Ram Naresh, who is Additional Secretary in the said fair price shop. During the course of enquiry, the statements of the Ration Card Holders were recorded and the same revealed that during the period of May and June 2009, the distribution of Kerosene was not carried out by the fair price shop. Accordingly, a complaint was made and an FIR was directed to be registered against the present applicant and the Additional Secretary, which led to recording of FIR dated 24.5.2011 bearing Crime No. 18/2011. According to the contents of the FIR, the present applicant has been alleged to have violated Clause 6.2, Clause 6.3, Clause 6 (d), Clause 7 (4) and Agreement Condition No.8 which is punishable under section 3 read with section 7 of the EC Act. The present application has been filed for seeking quashment of the FIR. 3. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, the FIR has been registered on the basis of the Scheme of 1991, which is not the Control Order under section 3 of EC Act. Therefore, the registration of FIR for violation of Scheme of 1991 cannot be done. 3. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, the FIR has been registered on the basis of the Scheme of 1991, which is not the Control Order under section 3 of EC Act. Therefore, the registration of FIR for violation of Scheme of 1991 cannot be done. It was submitted that this Court in the case of Surendra Tyagi v. State of M.P., Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1912/2010, decided on 22.11.2010, has held that an FIR registered for violation of Scheme of 1991 cannot be made basis for prosecution as this Court in Shiv Kumar v. State of M.P. [ 2005(II) MPWN 86 = 2005(4) MPLJ 117 ], has held that the Scheme of 1991 is not a Control Order under section 3 of the EC Act. Therefore, the Prosecution cannot move forward. 4. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent filed written objection and submitted that the FIR is referring to violation of Scheme of 1991, which is just and proper and no fault can be found in it. 5. During the course of arguments, it was contended that now with the publication of Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2009, the Scheme of 1991 is no longer in existence and stands expressly repealed by Clause 15 of the Order of 2009. Therefore, the prosecution deserves to be continued particularly in light of the fact that the Control Order is formally in existence and the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant are clearly distinguishable on that ground. 6. I have considered the contentions advanced by both the parties and have perused the record filed along with the application. 7. The perusal of the FIR and the reply filed by the respondent No.2 goes to show that the allegation against the present applicant is with respect to the irregularities between the period starting from May 2009 to June 2009. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is correct so far as it relates to the violation of Scheme of 1991 is concerned. It is true that this Court in Surendra Tyagi's case (supra), has quashed the prosecution by holding that the Scheme of 1991 is alleged to have been violated and in the instant case as well, similar allegations have been levelled which emanates from the Scheme of 1991. It is true that this Court in Surendra Tyagi's case (supra), has quashed the prosecution by holding that the Scheme of 1991 is alleged to have been violated and in the instant case as well, similar allegations have been levelled which emanates from the Scheme of 1991. However, before arriving at a conclusion with respect to the present case, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the Scheme of 1991 stands substituted by the Control Order of 2009 which justifies the prosecution, is required to be examined. 8. The submission deserves consideration in light of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of India which provides as under : “No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.” 9. In the context of above, if the facts of the present case are examined, then it is clear that subsequent publication of the Control Order of 2009 i.e. on 3.11.2009, will not make any difference to the case in hand as in this case the allegation that the illegality was committed during May and June 2009, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent deserves to be rejected. 10. In this view of the matter and considering that in similar set of facts with similar allegations, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the prosecution, the present application under section 482 of CrPC is allowed and the FIR bearing Crime No.18/2011 with Police Station Bharoli, District Bhind (MP) is hereby quashed and all consequential proceedings are thereby quashed.