SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Bom) 346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE, K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
Bhagwan S/o Namdeo Dawkhar - Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Application No. 2 of 2017
Decided On : 21-03-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. S.J. Salunke
For the Respondent/State: Mr. M.M. Nerlikar

Important Point - For attracting the provisions of offence punishable under section 7 of the said Act the order under section 3 of the said Act is essential.

Headnote:Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3 and 7-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482-FIR for offence under Section 7 of Act.-In absence of breach of violation of order made under Section 3 of Act, FIR registered for offence under Section 7 of Act liable to be quashed.

       In the facts of the present case also, there is no reference whatsoever in the first information report to any order having made under Section 3 of the said Act being violated and therefore, the proceedings for offence punishable under Section 7 would not be tenable. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings based upon the said first information report would amount to abuse of process of law. In the circumstances, the application deserves to be allowed.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Shinde, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By way of filing this application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the first information report No.3031/2016, which is registered against him with Police Station, Ambad for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

3. The brief facts, leading to file the present Criminal Application, are as under :

(a) The informant is the Police Inspector attached with Police Station Ambad, Dist. Jalna. He received the information that, the commodities of public distribution system are getting transported for black marketing. Accordingly the police persons made necessary arrangements to seize the said commodities. Thereafter, they gave signal to stop the vehicle, which was driven by the applicant. Thereafter, they made necessary enquiry with the applicant and on enquiry, the applicant stated that, the commodities i.e. wheat and sugar which are in tempo, are of the fair price shop.

(b) The police seized the commodities worth of Rs. 33,500/- with tempo. On information of respondent No.2, the crime came to be registered with Police Station, Ambad, Dist. Jalna, for the offence punishable under sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”).

(c) The applicant is not running any fair price shop. Even none of his family member is licensee of any fair price shop. The alleged tempo is belonging to one Durgadas Devidas Dharphal, R/o Ganpati Galli, Ambad. The applicant is the driver and running the tempo as per directions of his employer. He was neither aware about the nature of food grains nor involved himself in black marketing and as per say of his employer, he carried the food grains to Ambad.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that, in the First Information Report there is no reference whatsoever made about breach of any order, that has been made under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is submitted that unless there is breach of any order that has been made under section 3 of the said Act, there would be no question of any violation of such order to result in an offence being committed under section 7 of the said Act. Learned counsel submits that a specific ground has been raised by the applicant in the present application that as no order has been made under section 3 of the said Act, therefore, there was no question of its violation. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant placed reliance on the exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P., 2004 AIR SCW 5334 the Division Bench of Bombay High Court bench at Nagpur in the case of Rakesh S/o Mahendrakumar Jain Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2014 AllMR(Cri.) 3144 and in the case of Dhanraj Anandrao Mohod and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2016 (2) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 492.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent/State, on the other hand, submitted that as a prima facie case had been made out against the applicant, the offence under section 3 of the said Act read with section 7 thereof has been registered, therefore, he submits that, the application for quashing F.I.R. may not be entertained.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the averments in the application, annexures thereto and original record, we are of the opinion that, the application deserves to be allowed for the reasons stated hereinbelow.

7. Admittedly, in this case, there is no mention of contravention of any order made under section 3 of the said Act, and therefore, in absence of any order made under section 3 of which the contravention is claimed, the offence under section 7 could not be made out. The Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi (supra) has taken a view that for attracting the provi






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top