Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 414 (MP)

Bitoli Devi v. State of M. P.

2016-05-13

N.K.GUPTA

body2016
ORDER 1. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 25.4.2013 passed by the JMFC, Kolaras District Shivpuri in Criminal Case No.1046/2009, whereby the charges of offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short “E.C. Act”) were framed against the applicant. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that Assistant Superintendent of Land Record, Kolaras District Shivpuri inspected the shop of one salesman Rathore and found that the entries made in the ration card were incorrect. The consumers having BPL ration card were not given appropriate quantity of kerosene and they were charged with at the rate of Rs.11/- per litre, whereas there was a fixed rate of Rs.10/- per litre for such distribution. It was also found that no distribution of ration was done by the salesman in the months of March and April, 2009. Similarly sugar was sold at the rate of Rs.15/- per kg. whereas rate of Rs.13.50/- per k.g. was fixed and, therefore, an FIR was lodged against the salesman Rathore and President and Secretary of the concerned society, who took the work of distribution of ration. 3. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The JMFC, Kolaras after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, passed an order dated 25.4.2013, whereas the aforesaid charges were framed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that at the time of incident “Madhya Pradesh (Khadya Padarth) Sarvjanik Nagrik Purti Scheme, 1991” (in short “Scheme”) was prevalent and according to rule 13 of the Scheme, penalties were prescribed for various irregularities and for such irregularities, no charge under section 3/7 of the E.C. Act may be framed. In support of this contention, some orders of the single Bench of this Court in the cases of “Jodh Singh and another v. State of M.P. and another” [Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8836/2013, order dated 13.3.2015] “Shrinivas Tyagi v. State of Madhya Pradesh” [Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9523/2013, order dated 4.8.2015] and “Narottam Singh Tomar v. State of M.P.” [Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.3882/2008, order dated 11.10.2013], are referred. Also the order passed in case of “Surendra Tyagi v. State of M.P.” [2011(2) EFR 577], was referred. Also the order passed in case of “Surendra Tyagi v. State of M.P.” [2011(2) EFR 577], was referred. It is support from the aforesaid orders as well as from the provision of rule 13 of the aforesaid Scheme that for irregularities committed by shopkeepers of ration shop, various penalties were prescribed and which could be imposed by the particular officer of the State. Hence, when the penalty is prescribed then for violation of various rules of the Scheme, prosecution under section 3/7 of the E.C. Act may not be done. The trial Court has appended charge No.2 for such irregularities and, therefore, such charge could not be framed against the applicant. 6. However, after perusal of the Scheme and Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution) Control Order, 1960 (in short “control order”). It appears that if the accused has committed such an act, which defeats the concerned control order then offence under section 3/7 of the E.C. Act shall be made out. According to that control order, the ration including sugar and kerosene are to be supplied to the various consumers according to the terms and conditions fixed by the State and, therefore, if kerosene and sugar are sold on higher rate or they are not provided to the concerned consumers and also they are not found in the stock then it shall be presumed that such articles, which were to be supplied to the concerned consumers, were sold in the open market and by such an act, it can be said that the accused has flouted the control order and, therefore, he was liable for the offence under section 3/7 of the E.C. Act. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the apex Court in case of “Shyam Sundar and others v. State of Haryana” [1990(1) EFR 1], and order passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in case of “Srilal Bajoriya and others v. State” [1989 EFR 118]. Attention is also invited to the order passed bya the single Bench of Delhi High Court in case of “Vidhyawati and others v. State” [1989 EFR 124]. Attention is also invited to the order passed bya the single Bench of Delhi High Court in case of “Vidhyawati and others v. State” [1989 EFR 124]. On the basis of these judgments and orders, it is submitted that the applicant being a Chairperson of the society was not at all responsible for the act done by the salesman and, therefore, she could not be prosecuted under section 3/7 of the E.C. Act. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is yet to be decided by the trial Court that there was no role of the applicant in the crime, when a contract was given to the society to run the ration shops in the locality then if the office bearers of the society appoints some salesmen, who are their servants then it is the duty of the Chairperson and Office Bearers of the society to arrange the management of shops so that no violation of control order should be done. The entire contract was given to the concerned society and not to a particular salesman and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was only liable for the offence vicariously. Her connivance may be presumed at this stage because no action was taken against salesman, who did not provide the ration to the concerned consumers for two months and he provided sugar and kerosene at a higher rate. Such an act is clearly indicates that the salesman had flouted the concerned control order and, therefore, he was liable for prosecution under section 3/7 of E. C. Act. It is for the applicant to establish that there was no role of the applicant in prosecuting the business of the particular shop or she is held liable for the crime vicariously. Hence, at this stage, such judgments and orders cannot be applied in favour of the applicant. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted in toto. However, it is apparent that the trial Court has levelled the charges of section 3/7 of the E.C. Act for various irregularities as shown in the Scheme. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted in toto. However, it is apparent that the trial Court has levelled the charges of section 3/7 of the E.C. Act for various irregularities as shown in the Scheme. Hence, revision is hereby disposed of with the direction that the order dated 25.4.2013 is set aside the matter is remanded to the trial Court, that the overt acts of the accused persons relating to the violation of the control order and in violation of the Scheme be ascertained and in violation of the control order is found then charges shall be framed thereafter accordingly. It is to be made clear that if any violation is done of the particular control order then in charge under section 3/7 of the E. C. Act, violation of that control order should be shown and mentioned. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the present revision is hereby disposed of. Sanjay Bahirani for applicant; B. K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for State.