The police were not prevented from taking cognizance of the offence under the Essential Commodities Act, and there was no bar to quashing the FIR against the petitioners.

T.V. NALAWADE, J.

1. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India and section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for relief of quashing of F.I.R. No. 20/12 dated 16.7.2012 registered with Faizpur Police Station, Tahsil Yawal, District Jalgaon. It is registered for offences punishable under sections 3 r/w. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and section 33 (A) of Bombay Police Act, 1951. Both the sides are heard.

2. F.I.R. is given by Police Officer of S.D.P.O. Faizpur. On that day, police had specific information that in hotel Akashlakshya situated at Faizpur - Bhusawal road, the business of prostitution was being done. The A.P.I. and police staff went to the said hotel in the night time and the jeep was stopped at some distance. When they entered the hotel, they noticed that petitioner No. 1 Ramesh was sitting at the counter. After seeing police, Ramesh somehow ran away and escaped. The staff of the hotel including Manager Manohar were there and when inquiry was made, they informed that petitioner No. 2 Harish, brother of Ramesh, was the owner of the hotel. The record regarding ownership and permission to run the business of hoteling was shown and it was in the name of Harish. Some persons were seen consuming liquor and taking dinner.

3. During search, police could not see anything showing that prostitution business was being done, but they came across L.P.G. gas cylinder which was meant for domestic consumption and not for commercial use. The S.D.P.O. was also in the company of this raiding party. The panchanama was prepared by A.P.I. Shri. Patil and this cylinder was taken over. As L.P.G. cylinder which was to be used for domestic purpose only was being used for commercial purpose in hoteling business, the report was given for aforesaid offences and the crime came to be registered.

4. The learned counsel for petitioners mainly submitted that the action of police was illegal and they could not have seized cylinder and they could not have registered the crime. The learned counsel placed reliance on the observations made by this Court in the cases reported as 2014 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 169 [Sunil Shreekrishna Mdani Vs. State of Maharashtra] and also AIR 2007 (4) (BOM) 259 [Sunil Premsukh Sancheti & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra].

5. This Court has carefully gone through the scheme of Essential Commodities Act. Copy of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000 is produced on record and this Court has gone through the provisions of that Order. This Order is issued under section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The provisions of Order show that if L.P.G. is supplied for particular use, that needs to be used only for that purpose and if it is used for other purpose, then it amounts to breach of the Order (Clause 3 (1) (c) of the Order).

6. The provisions of section 3 r/w. section 7 (1)(a) (ii) show that breach of aforesaid Order falls under these provisions of Essential Commodities Act. The provision of section 10A shows that this offence is cognizable. Further, the aforesaid provision of section 7 of the Act shows that the punishment provided for this offence is seven years. Section 11 of the Act shows that cognizance of such offence can be taken on the report given by public servant in writing and for the purpose of this section, the definition of public servant given in section 21 of IPC is to be used. The provision of section 11 further shows that even registered Consumer Association can approach the Court and on it's complaint, cognizance of the offence can be taken by the Court.

7. On aforesaid point, the observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 506 [Satya Narain Musadi and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar] can be referred :-

"S. 11 of the Essential Commodities Act precludes a Court from taking cognizance of the offence punishable under the Act except upon a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who