Back
1984 Supreme(Cal) 292
High Court Of Calcutta
U. C. BANERJEE
DEEPCHAND AGARWALLA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Matter 1190 Of 1983
Decided On : 08/10/1984
A.P.CHATTERJEE, DIPAK BANERJI, JATIN GHOSH, SUBRATA ROYCHOWDHURY
The jurisdiction of the writ court in quashing an investigation is very restrictive and should be exercised with utmost care. The court should not interfere in the investigation unless there is a blatant failure on the part of the investigating agency to make out a prima facie case.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - INVESTIGATION - QUASHING OF INVESTIGATION - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - DEALER AND COMMISSION AGENT - STOCK LIMITS - STORAGE OF PULSES, EDIBLE OILSEEDS AND EDIBLE OILS - LICENSING OF DEALERS - FILING OF RETURNS - TRADE LICENSE - JURISDICTION OF WRIT COURT - COGNIZABLE OFFENSE - DISCLOSURE IN FIR - INTERFERENCE BY COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a commission agent, challenged the investigation initiated against him under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, based on a First Information Report (FIR) alleging violation of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978, and the Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oil (Storage Control) Order, 1977. The petitioner contended that the FIR did not disclose an offense and that the investigation was an abuse of process.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense and that the investigation was not an abuse of process. The court noted that the petitioner had obtained a license under the State Control Order and had filed returns in Form C, detailing the necessary particulars required under the order. The court also noted that the petitioner had a wholesaler license since 1980, which indicated that he was a dealer under the Central Control Order. The court further held that the Trade License, which indicated that the petitioner was carrying on business as a commission agent, was not reliable evidence to determine the nature of the business carried on by the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR disclosed an offense? 2. Whether the investigation was an abuse of process?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense because it detailed the necessary particulars regarding the violation of Clause 4 of the Central Control Order, which imposed stock limits on dealers. 2. The court held that the investigation was not an abuse of process because the petitioner had not produced any reliable documentary evidence to establish that he was carrying on business as a commission agent and that further and fuller disclosures were required.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense and that the investigation was not an abuse of process.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is for quashing of an investigation commenced under S. 6a of the Essential Commodities Act on the basis of a First Information Report dt. 4th july, 1983 lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Enforcement Directorate with the Officer-in-Charge, Burrabazar P. S. being P. S. Case No. 47 dt. 4th July, 1983 under S. 7 (1) (a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
( 2 ) IT is a well settled principle of law that investigation of an offence is the field, exclusively reserved for the Executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the Judiciary. .
( 3 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury appearing for the petitioner, however, strongly relied on the later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar reported in AIR 1982 SC 949 and contended that in the event of nondisclosure of an offence in the First Information Report, the Writ Court would be within its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. In the said decision the Supreme Court observed that on a consideration of all the relevant materials the Court has to come to the conclusion as to whether an offence is disclosed or not and if on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, then Court would not interfere and would generally allow the investigation into the offences to be completed. If on the other hand, the Court, on the consideration of the relevant materials, is satisfied that no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of the Court to interfere and stop the investigation to prevent uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to an individual.
( 4 ) IN this context reference may also be made to another decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 (State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami) wherein the Supreme Court observed that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The saving of High Court's inherent powers both in Civil and Criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is for a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. Needless however to say that the observation of the Supreme Court pertain to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid it is therefore necessary to consider the First Information Report for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the First Information Report lodged by the Sub-Inspector of the Enforcement Directorate does disclose an offence or not. The said First Information Report reads as follows:-"i. S. I. S. N. Sarkar of E. B. lodged complaint to the effect that to-day (4/7/83) getting on an information the undersigned along with others officers of E. B. had been to M/s. Shyam Oil Industries at 9, Jagmohan Mullick Lane, Calcutta-7 and found that one Mohanlal Agarwala S/o Deepchand Agarwala, person-in-charge of the firm was present there. Mohanlal Agarwala produced the stock Register for pulses of the firm and the pulses licence on demand. On scrutinising of the Licence found that Deepchand Agarwala S/o Late Ratiram Agarwala and Others are the partners of the firm. But none of the partners are found present. On checking of the stock Register for pulses it was found that the firm has a stock of pulses at 157, Manicktolla Main Road, viz. Masurgota 1581 bags weighing 1581 quintals, Lalai gota 1660 bags weight 1660 qtls. and Khesari gota, 493 bags weighing 493 qtls. As the firm kept total 3734 qtls. in their godown, they violated the provisions of West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oils
