2002 Supreme(Cal) 623

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ashok Kumar Mathur, Jayanta Kumar Biswas, JJ.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Versus
Sushanta Kumar Saha
MAT No. 2462 of 2000
Decided On : September 19, 2002

The relationship between the Government and the respondent was one of 'master and servant'. The respondent had no liberty or right to purchase the rationed articles i.e. the food-stuffs in question. He was entitled only to certain monetary benefits for doing the work. The allegations made in the F.I.R. dated 22nd April, 1999 did make out a cognizable offence against the respondent. The search and seizure, conducted by the inspecting squad, was absolutely irrelevant for initiating the investigation by the police on the basis of the information given in the F.I.R. dated 22nd April, 1999; as also for examining the question whether allegations made in the F.I.R. did constitute the commission of any cognizable offence.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL - F.I.R. - QUASHING - COGNIZANCE - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 - SECTION 7(1)(A)(II) - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTIONS 403, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND DISTRIBUTOR - ENTITLEMENT OF DISTRIBUTOR - MISAPPROPRIATION - OFFENCE - F.I.R. - QUASHING - MALA FIDES - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - PROCEDURE - NON-COMPLIANCE - EFFECT - F.I.R. - VALIDITY - COGNIZANCE - EFFECT - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent was appointed as an M.R. distributor by an agreement dated 1st September, 1969, to act as a 'Distributor' in food-stuffs under the scheme framed by the Government for distribution of food-stuffs to consumers in the districts of West Bengal. On 22nd April, 1999, a group of Panchayat representatives met the District Controller(F & S), Nadia in a deputation for lodging complaint against the respondent regarding alleged illegalities in the distribution by him of the rice supplied by the Government at subsidized rate for distribution to landless agricultural labourers. Consequently, the respondent's godown was raided on 26th September, 1990. The incident ultimately led to the institution of E.C. Case No. 29 of 1990 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 before the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act), Nadia. It ultimately ended in respondent's acquittal. Again, on 28th January, 1992 the District Controller, the Sub-Divisional Controller and the other officials on a surprise visit at the respondent's godown claimed to have found that the respondent besides changing the quality of rice received from the Food Department, had sold NBSF BLD rice in clandestine manner and falsified and tampered with the relevant documents. Consequently, the District Magistrate suspended the supplies of food-stuffs to the respondent. On the basis of an F.I.R., E.C. Case No. 70 of 1992 was started against the respondent before the learned Judge, Special Court(E.C. Act), Nadia. On 21st July, 1997 the District Magistrate, Nadia directed the District Controller (F & S), Nadia to take legal action against the respondent for alleged irregularities and illegalities committed by him while acting as M.R Distributor. The District Magistrate's such direction was challenged by the respondent by filing yet another writ petition [W.P. No.15723(W) of 1997]. By an order dated 11th August, 1997 the District Magistrate's said memo dated 21st July, 1997 was stayed. This writ petition was also claimed to be pending decision as on 22nd April, 1999. In the meanwhile, trial of the said E.C. Case No.29 of 1990 proceeded. Finally by the judgment and order dated 10th February, 1999, passed in that case, the respondent was acquitted. Complaints against the respondent continued to pour in. On the basis of reports from various sources regarding the respondent's alleged persistent illegal activities involving the food-grains and articles supplied to him by the Food & Supplies Department, the District Controller(F & S), Nadia ultimately formed a squad consisting of four Chief Inspectors(F & S) for raiding the respondent's godown. Accordingly, on 22nd April, 1999 at 11 a.m the squad raided the respondent's godown. The raid led to the lodging of the impugned F.I.R. dated 22nd April, 1999 with the Nabadwip Police Station.

Finding of the Court:

The relationship between the Government and the respondent was one of 'master and servant'. The respondent had no liberty or right to purchase the rationed articles i.e. the food-stuffs in question. He was entitled only to certain monetary benefits for doing the work. The allegations made in the F.I.R. dated 22nd April, 1999 did make out a cognizable offence against the respondent. The search and seizure, conducted by the inspecting squad, was absolutely irrelevant for initiating the investigation by the police on the basis of the information given in the F.I.R. dated 22nd April, 1999; as also for examining the question whether allegations made in the F.I.R. did constitute the commission of any cognizable offence. The fact of taking cognizance not only strengthens the F.I.R. but also negates the allegations of mala fides in lodging the same.

Issues: 1. Whether the relationship between the Government and the respondent was one of 'master and servant'? 2. Whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. dated 22nd April, 1999 did make out a cognizable offence against the respondent? 3. Whether the search and seizure, conducted by the inspecting squad, was relevant for initiating the investigation by the police on the basis of the information given in the F.I.R. dated 22nd April, 1999? 4. Whether the F.I.R. dated 22nd April, 1999 was mala fide? 5. Whether the F.I.R. dated 22nd April, 1999 could be quashed after filing of the charge sheet and taking cognizance?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The relationship between the Government and the respondent was one of 'master and servant'. The respondent had no liberty or right to purchase the rationed articles i.e. the food-stuffs in question. He was entitled only to certain monetary benefits for doing the work. 2. The allegations made in the F.I.R. dated 22nd April, 1999 did make out a cognizable offence against the respondent. 3. The search and seizure, conducted by the inspecting squad, was absolutely irrelevant for initiating the investigation by the police on the basis of the information given in the F.I.R. dated 22nd April, 1999; as also for examining the question whether allegations made in the F.I.R. did constitute the commission of any cognizable offence. 4. The fact of taking cognizance not only strengthens the F.I.R. but also negates the allegations of mala fides in lodging the same.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 14th July, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge on respondent's writ petition [W.P. No. 9111(W) of 1999] was set aside. The writ petition [W.P. No.9111(W) of 1999] was dismissed with cost ofRs.10,000.00 to be paid by the respondent to the State within a month from date.