IMPORTANT POINT
Where Food and Civil Supplies Department is satisfied that there is no contravention of the conditions of licence of an essential commodity on a later representation of the licencee, there is no justification or warrant for his prosecution on the initial case registered against him.

JUDGMENT

M. K. Chawla, J. - Walayati Ram and Gulshan Kumar, father and son, applied to the Civil Supply Department of Delhi Administration for the allotment of a Fair Price Shop. Their application was considered and sanctioned by the Department. They started their business in the name and style of 'M/s. Walayati Ram Gulshan Kumar at premises No. 387, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.

2. During the course of routine checking, on 22.3.1983, Shri M.I. Ansari, Inspector. Enforcement Branch of Food and Supplies Department, along with other members of the staff, visited the premises, i.e. the petitioners' Fair Price Shop and on checking found that on 11.3.83, two quintals, thirty two kilograms and five hundred grams of R.B D. Palm Oil in 15 tins and on 17.3.1983, two quintals, 32 kilograms and five hundred grams of rapeseed oil were issued to the Shop in 15 tins for which the petitioners had not made any entry in their stock register. On the basis of said checking the Inspector lodged the report with the police under sections 7/10/55 of the Essential Commodities Act, which was registered as F.I.R. No. 101, dated 24.3.1983 at Police Station, Fresh Bazar, Delhi.

3. In consequence of the filing of the said complaint, the licence of the petitioners' shop was suspended vide order dated 26.3.1983. Later on the Assistant Commissioner of the Food and Civil Supplies Department cancelled the Fair Price Shop on 20.4.1983 with immediate effect.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of suspension, filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner but the same was rejected. However, their appeal before the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies was accepted on 21.6.1983 and the cancellation of the Fair Price Shop was set aside, the licence was restored and thereafter the petitioners started carrying their business regularly.

S. During the pendency of the cancellation of the Fair Price Shop, the investigation in the complaint was completed and a challan was filed in the Court of Shri S.R. Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi. The said Court issued notice to the petitioner, a charge was framed and the case was fixed for recording the prosecution evidence, which is still pending.

6. After the petitioners were exonerated of the default by the department, which was the basis of the filing of the complaint before the Sessions Judge, the petitioners filed a petition in this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. M(M) 132/84) for the quashing of the proceedings pending in the lower court. This Court, however, directed the petitioners to first apply and raise this plea before the lower court. Accordingly, an application was filed but the same was dismissed vide order dated 8.3.1985. This very order is under challenge in the present petition.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in brief is that, to start with, the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for the contravention of sections 7/10/55 of the Essential Commodities Act, inasmuch as they bad committed irregularities in the distribution of rape-seed oil and R.B.D. Palm oil. This was on the report of the department However, after his appeal was accepted by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Delhi Administration, the very basis of the complaint on board. His further submission is that once the Department has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had maintained regular stock register regarding the distribution of the rape-seed and palm oil to the ration card holders, the petitioners cannot be held liable for criminal offence. Hence it is a fit case for quashing the proceedings pending in the trial court, and the discharge of the accused persons.

8. The State has opposed the application. According to the learned counsel, once the proceedings have been initiated and are pending adjudication, the same cannot be quashed unless and until a thorough probe is made by the Court.

9. After hearing the learned c