Back
High Court Of Delhi
SURAJ BHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 119 of 1980
Decided On : 03/17/1980
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - SUGARCANE CONTROL ORDER - DELHI SUGAR DEALERS LICENSING CONTROL ORDER, 1963 - SECTIONS 3, 10 - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTIONS 2(F), 3 - DELHI KHANDSARI AND GUR DEALERS LICENSING ORDER, 1963 - SECTION 2(F) - SUGAR (PRICE CONTROL) ORDER, 1979 - SECTION 2 - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SECTION 438 - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE - JURISDICTION - SESSIONS COURT AND HIGH COURT - CONCURRENT JURISDICTION - CHOICE OF FORUM - REJECTION OF BAIL APPLICATION - NO BAR TO FRESH APPLICATION - GROUNDS - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, partners of firms dealing in Khandsari, were arrested for allegedly violating the Delhi Sugar Dealers Licensing Control Order, 1963, by possessing more than the permissible limit of 1000 quintals of sugar. They claimed that Khandsari was a different substance from mill sugar and was not subject to the said Order. They also argued that they had a bonafide belief that there was no control over the quantity of Khandsari that could be stocked, as the Sugar (Price Control) Order, 1979, defined sugar as one manufactured by vacuum pan process, which Khandsari was not.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail as there was no allegation that they were likely to abscond or misuse their liberty while on bail, and the investigation was not likely to be hampered by their release. The court also clarified that the investigating officer was Shri V. K. Rishi, Inspector Police, New Kotwali, Darya Ganj, Delhi, and that the petitioners, except ladies and those living at distant places, were to make themselves available for interrogation as and when required.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had committed an offence under the Delhi Sugar Dealers Licensing Control Order, 1963, by possessing more than the permissible limit of 1000 quintals of sugar? 2. Whether Khandsari was a different substance from mill sugar and was not subject to the said Order? 3. Whether the petitioners had a bonafide belief that there was no control over the quantity of Khandsari that could be stocked? 4. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners had not committed an offence under the Delhi Sugar Dealers Licensing Control Order, 1963, as Khandsari was a different substance from mill sugar and was not subject to the said Order. 2. The court also held that the petitioners had a bonafide belief that there was no control over the quantity of Khandsari that could be stocked, as the Sugar (Price Control) Order, 1979, defined sugar as one manufactured by vacuum pan process, which Khandsari was not. 3. The court further held that the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail as there was no allegation that they were likely to abscond or misuse their liberty while on bail, and the investigation was not likely to be hampered by their release.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.
( 1 ) FIVE Criminal Misc. (Main) petitioners Nos. 115 to 119 of 1980 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) are being decided together because of similar facts and same question of law involved. This order is being written in Crl. Misc. (Main) 115 of 1980.
( 2 ). The petitioners in every case are partners of the firm which are carrying on business in Rui-Ki-Mandi Sadar Bazar, Delhi. They deal interalia in Khandsari.
( 3 ). On 14th February 1980 some staff of Food and Supplies (Enforcement Branch) Delhi and Delhi Police (Special Cell, Crime Branch) carried out separate raids at the premises of every one or the petitioners and took into possession stocks of large number of bags of suspected sugar because quanity held by every individual firm was more than maximum permissible limit of 1000 quintals to be stocked under Delhi Sugar Dealers Licencing Control Order 1963 (hereinafter referred to as sugar Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act by the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi vide notification dated 19th February 1963 published in part 1 V of Delhi Gazette Extra-ordinary. According to Section 2 (f) of the sugar Control Order any substance including Khandsari which contains more than 90% of Sucrose is sugar within the meaning of said Order. After seizure of the stock it was necessary to find out the contents of sucrose. Hence the matter was referred to Chemical Examiner who made a report that suspected sugar , which was seized, contained more than 90% sucrose. After receipt of that report the Police wanted to arrest the petitioners on account of alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 3 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the petitioners brought petitions before the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi, for gram of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code. Those petitioners were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi on 29th February, 1980. Thereafter petition No. 115 of 1980 was instituted on 1st March 1980 while remaining petitions were instituted on 3rd March, 1980.
( 4 ). The case of the petitioners is that they had not committed any infraction or violation of Sugar Control Order because there are three types of sugar, namely Mill Sugar, Khandsari and sulpher quality sugar, that the stocks which were seized by the authorities was of Khandsari and not mill sugar while the Sugar Control Order was in respect of mill sugar only. They urge that Khandsari was entirely a different substance manufactured by a different process, that mill sugar was manufactured by vaccum pan process while Khandsari was controlled by means of Delhi Khandsari and Gur Dealers Licencing Order 1963, clause (f) of Section 2 of which defined Khandsari. It is also stated by the petitioners that in view of two different control orders, one in respect of mill sugar and the other in respect of Khandsari and Gur separate registers for stock had been maintained which indicated that Khandsari was always treated different from mill sugar. According to them on 16th January 1979 control on sugar was removed.
( 5 ). The petitioners pointed out that with a view to ensure that action of all Khandsari dealers in stocking Khandsari did not constitute violation of any law an inquiry was made by the Association of the said dealers known as Delhi Grain Merchants Association from the Commissioners Food and Supplies by means of a letter dated 20th October 1979 if there was any control in respect of Khandsari or sulpher quality sugar, regarding price, quantity to he stocked and import and export of the same into Delhi, that no definite reply was sent but a letter alongwith copy of the order dated September 12, 1979 issued by the. Government of India. Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (Department of Food) known as Sugar (Price Control) Order 1979 was received, that the said order of 1979 defined sugar as one manufactured by va cum pan process and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
