Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 480 (MP)

Deshraj Singh v. State of M. P.

2017-04-10

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2017
ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Morena in Criminal Case No.986 of 2009. 2. Necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short, are that a first information report was lodged by District Supply Officer, Morena alleging that on 2.4.2008 the fair price shop of Sewa Sahkari Sansthan Subhashgadhi was inspected and it was found that the physical stock was not matching with the stock register. Accordingly, it was alleged that the applicant has violated Clause 8 (1) of Madhya Pradesh (Food Stuff) Public Distribution Scheme 1991 (hereinafter would be referred as to the `Scheme of 1991') and therefore, the applicant has committed an offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that so far as Scheme of 1991 is concerned, as it was not a control order but was merely an executive instruction, therefore, the violation of the same cannot be held to be punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 4. To butterace the contention, counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Shivkumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 2005(II) MPWN 86 = 2005(4) MPLJ 117 ] and Surendra Tyagi v. State of M.P. [(2001)2 EFR 577]. 5. This Court in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra), has held as under : “First condition for prosecuting a person under section 7 is that there should be a contravention of the control order issued by the State Government under section 3 the Essential Commodities Act. Any scheme framed under the executive powers by the State Government may not come within the purview of the control order and for that it would not be necessary that it should satisfy the provisions laid down under section 3 of the Act. Any scheme framed under the executive powers by the State Government may not come within the purview of the control order and for that it would not be necessary that it should satisfy the provisions laid down under section 3 of the Act. Therefore, in order to prosecute a person for violation of the terms and conditions of the scheme it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the scheme is in the nature of control order and further to prove that the same has been issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and in the absence of such an evidence, any scheme framed under executive power cannot fall within the purview of the control order and the person cannot be prosecuted and held guilty”. 6. In the present case also, the allegations are that certain irregularities were committed which had resulted in violation of clause 8 (1) of the Scheme of 1991. As the Scheme of 1991 was not framed under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, therefore, it is held that any contravention of the Scheme of 1991 is not punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 7. Hence, the prosecution of applicant for offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for having violated clause 8 (1) of the Scheme of 1991 is bad and accordingly, the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant before the Court of JMFC, Morena in Criminal Case No.986 of 2009 are quashed. 8. The application succeeds and is hereby allowed.