Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 631 (MP)

Vipin Singh v. State of M. P.

2020-05-26

ATUL SREEDHARAN

body2020
ORDER 1. This common order shall dispose of M.Cr.C No. 8019/2020 and M.Cr.C No. 7332/2020. The applications have been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to Vipin Singh (applicant in M.Cr.C 8019/2020) and Vinayak Kumar Upadhya (Applicant in M.Cr.C No. 7332/2020). The allegations against them is based upon the statement of the agricultural extension officer Mr Shyam Babu Malviya. He states that he is posted at Babai and from 15.11.2019 till 30.11.2019, he carried out inspection at various godown to inspect the quality of seeds being packed to be sold to the farmers. 2. On 28.11.2019, he inspected Shiv Mahima Godown and found seeds, which are packed in various sacks bearing the name of Narmadanchal seeds and Vinayak seeds. The applicant Vipin is the proprietor of Narmadanchal seeds and the applicant Vinayak is the proprietor of Vinayak seeds. According to the case of the prosecution, the applicants had filled in ordinary grains into the sacks and the same were to be sold as seeds to the farmers. Under the circumstances it is contended that the act of the applicants constituted a violation of the Seed Control Order, 1983, and the Seeds Act 1966. It is also alleged that their act violated the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and also constituted the offence of cheating under section 420 IPC as the grain was to be sold to the farmers as seeds. 3. The findings of the police and the Department are only based only on the circumstance of finding sacks that bore the name of the firms of which the applicants are the proprietors. There is no evidence, either by way of any ocular testimony or documentary evidence, to show that the said sacks were filled up at the godown/warehouses of the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that the warehouses of the applicants were also inspected but nothing incriminating was found there. There is however a mention of the stock register which reflects amendments/fabrication, as stated by the Department. As regards the offence under section 420 IPC, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that as there is no evidence to establish that any of the grain was sold to any farmer as seeds, and in the absence of any complaint from any purchaser to that effect, there was no commission of an offence under section 420 IPC. As regards the offence under section 420 IPC, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that as there is no evidence to establish that any of the grain was sold to any farmer as seeds, and in the absence of any complaint from any purchaser to that effect, there was no commission of an offence under section 420 IPC. He further submits that even if the contention of this prosecution is taken to be true and correct, the offence would be one of attempt to commit cheating under section 420/511 IPC. 4. Be that as it may, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that there is no evidence to show that the sacks alleged to belonging to the two firms mentioned herein above were actually belonging to the applicants and that they were filled up by the applicants with ordinary grain at their warehouses and also, as no one has suffered any loss on account of the alleged offence and that the same has been stemmed before any loss could occur to anyone, the applications are allowed and the applicants Vipin Singh and Vinay Kumar Upadhyaya shall be enlarged on bail upon their arrest, subject to the furnishing of a personal bond of ? 50,000 and one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. With the above the application is finally disposed of.