IMPORTANT POINT
Arrest should be last option for police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights.

JUDGMENT

Siddharth, J.—As per Resolution dated 07.04.2021 of the Committee of this Court for the purpose of taking preventive and remedial measures and for combating the impending threat of Covid-19, this case is being heard by way of virtual mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State through video conferencing.

3. Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

4. This exemption application is allowed.

5. Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

6. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Daudayal Sharma , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 229 of 2020, under Section-3/7 of Essential Commodity Act and section 2(A) of Motor Sprite and Highsprid Diesel Order Act, 1999 I.P.C., Police Station-Gabhana, District-Aligarh, during pendency of trial.

7. Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

8. The applicant has been implicated for offence under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act. This Court in the case of Smt. Shakila Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Application under Section 482 No. 44486 of 2012 has held as follows:-

“The question that falls for determination in this case is whether special court which ceased to be Special Court under the provisions of Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 still has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence or to remand the accused to the custody who is implicated for the offence under Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Principal Act”) provides for regulation of production, supply and pricing of essential commodities. This Act had been amended from time to time. In spite of extensive amendments made to the Principal Act, some of the existing provisions of that Act have not been adequate and effective for expeditious disposal of the cases as well as ensuring availability of the essential commodities at fair prices and for curbing hoarding and black-marketing of and profiteering in, such commodities. Moreso, there were large number of court cases pending under the Principal Act all over the country. For dealing more effectively with persons indulging in anti-social activities, it was considered necessary to make special provisions by way of amendments to the Principal Act for temporary period of 5 years and viewed with this perception, special provisions were brought by way of amendment to the Principle Act. The Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Special Provisions’) consequently came into force w.e.f. 1.9.1982 in all the States and Union Territories. This special provision was enforced initially for a period of 5 years and was extended for further period of 5 years i.e. 1987 to 1992 and thereafter from 1992 to 1997. The Special provisions were enforced till 13.8.1997. Thereafter the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1997 (Central Ordinance 21 of 1997) was promulgated. As there was no enactment the Essential Commodities Amendment Ordinance 1998 (Central Amendment Ordinance 13 of 1998) was promulgated by the President. The above Ordinances lapsed since they were not replaced by enactments, as a result of which, Special Courts established under Section 12-A for trial of Essential Commodities Act cases ceased to function. Consequentially position that followed was that cases registered under the Essential Commodities Act were to be tried before the Magistrate having jurisdiction as it was b