Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 190 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Ved Enterprises Transport

2021-02-19

VIRENDER SINGH

body2021
ORDER 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.12.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction exercised in Criminal Appeal No.266/2019, whereby, the learned appellate Court has set aside the order dated 30.8.2019 passed by Collector, Jabalpur imposing fine of Rs.4,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of truck seized on the allegation of illegal transportation of foodgrains meant for Public Distribution System, the State has approached this Court. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.3.2019 at about 4:30 p.m., suspecting that a truck bearing Registration No.MP-20- HB-9228 was indulged in some illegal activities, the police stopped and searched the same and found 495 bags of wheat supplied by the Civil Supplies Corporation to distribute the same at Cooperative Societies, to further distribute it to the public under the benevolent schemes of the Government. The driver of the truck namely Dilip Jharia could not produce valid document of transportation, therefore, the truck as well as the wheat found therein were seized. 3. Considering that the truck was liable to be confiscated under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) for contravention of section 3 thereof, a case was put up before the Collector, Jabalpur. After granting opportunity of hearing to the respondent, the Collector arrived at a conclusion that the respondent has contravened the provisions of the Act, therefore, the truck is liable to be confiscated and exercised powers under section 6A(1)(c) of the Act and directed the respondent-owner of the truck to deposit a fine of Rs.4,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation of the truck. 4. The said order was challenged by the respondent/Ved Enterprises Transport through Arun Kesharwani. The appellate Court observed in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2019 that no route was prescribed by any law for transportation of foodgrains found in the truck, therefore, the owner cannot be punished under the provisions of the Act. 5. The learned appellate Court placed reliance on the decisions of Kailash Prasad Yadav vs State of Jharkhand [ (2007) 5 SCC 769 ] and Ganpat Ram Gulab Chand vs State of M.P. 1983 MPWN 176 , wherein, under the same circumstances i.e. on the allegation of deviation of route, it has been held that such act does not constitute any offence under the Act. 6. 6. Before this Court, Shri Ravindra Singh Rajput, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the petitioner/State vehemently argued that the wheat was loaded in the truck to distribute in the city while at the time of inspection, the truck was found on the outskirts of the city. The defence taken by the owner of the truck was that the driver had gone to fill diesel on the specific petrol pump where the owner was maintaining his credit account for purchasing of diesel and entry of the heavy goods vehicles was restricted in the city due to Gajrath Mahotsav being celebrated by the followers of Jainism. It is further argued that no receipt of filing of diesel was ever produced by the owner/driver of the truck and the main temple of Jain religion is situated a kilometer away from the place where the truck was found, therefore, both the defences taken by the owner of the truck were not trustworthy, therefore, the order of the appellate Court is erroneous and the same deserves to be set aside. 7. On a specific query raised before learned Panel Lawyer to demonstrate any law restricting the route of transportation of the food grains supplied by the Civil Supply Corporation but nothing could be pointed out. 8. However, learned Panel Lawyer referred to paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment wherein the Appellate Court has observed that in rule 13(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, it has been mentioned that “No person shall commit substitution/diversion/adulteration during transportation, storage or distribution of food grains and other essential commodities kept for distribution under Targeted Public Distribution System." 9. It is not the case of the prosecution that the some foodgrains was ever distributed by the owner/driver of the truck at some unauthorized place. So far as the allegation of deviation of route is concerned, as stated above, no such order/direction/rule/regulations have been produced which limits or prescribes some route for transportation of the foodgrains, therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order of learned appellate Court. 10. Thus, being bereft of merit, the admission is declined and the revision petition preferred by the State stands dismissed. Ravindra Singh Rajput, Panel Lawyer for applicant/State.