SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 418

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Banshi Lal S/o Shri Jora Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4447 of 2024
Decided on : 12-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr. Mukhtyar Khan, P.P.

IMPORTANT POINT
The transportation of petroleum products is permissible under specific conditions set by government notifications, which can override general prohibitions under the Essential Commodities Act.

Headnote:

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - QUASHING OF FIR - The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner for alleged violations of the Essential Commodities Act, interpreting the relevant provisions and prior judgments to conclude that the transportation of 400 liters of petrol was permissible under existing regulations, specifically a notification allowing individuals to transport up to 2500 liters.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was accused of transporting 400 liters of a petrol-like substance without proper authorization, leading to the registration of an FIR under the Essential Commodities Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution's case was undermined by a prior judgment and a government notification permitting the transportation of up to 2500 liters of petrol, which the prosecution did not dispute.

Issues: Whether the petitioner violated the Essential Commodities Act by transporting 400 liters of petrol and whether the FIR was valid under the existing legal framework.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prior judgment and the notification issued by the competent authority provided a legal basis for the petitioner to transport the petrol, thus negating the charges against him.

Final Decision: The FIR was quashed, and the petitioner was entitled to the release of his vehicle.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

  1. The FIR registered against the petitioner for allegedly transporting 400 liters of petrol was quashed by the court because the transportation was permissible under existing regulations and notifications. The court found that the petitioner’s actions did not violate the Essential Commodities Act due to the authorization provided by prior notifications and legal interpretations (!) .

  2. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, particularly Sections 3 and 7, and noted that government notifications permitted the transportation of up to 2500 liters of petrol by an individual, which the petitioner’s case fell within (!) (!) .

  3. The prosecution’s case was undermined by the existence of a government notification and prior legal judgments that allowed the transportation of petrol within specified limits, leading to the conclusion that the FIR was invalid under the current legal framework (!) (!) .

  4. As a result of the quashing of the FIR, the petitioner is entitled to the release of his vehicle and any other consequences arising from this order should be implemented promptly (!) .

  5. The court emphasized that the transportation of petroleum products is permissible under specific conditions set by government notifications, which take precedence over general prohibitions under the Essential Commodities Act [important point].

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.


ORDER :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of an FIR No.73/2024 dated 13.04.2024 registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, District Jodhpur City West for alleged offences under Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. According to the FIR, on 13.04.2024, the police received information via email and pursuant thereto Chief Sub Inspector recorded same in Roznamcha stating that during evening patrolling at Mogada, they erected a vehicle barricade. They stopped a Bolero Camper with registration number RJ-19-GG-7201 coming from Jodhpur side around 8:30 PM. The driver, identified himself as Pramod. He was in possession of vehicle documents and his driving license. Upon searching the vehicle, two large blue plastic bottles filled with 200-200 liters of inflammable substance resembling petrol were found in the vehicle. When questioned about the petrol and transportation, Pramod stated that his father Bansilal had bought it and had left it in the Balero camper with him.

2.1 Subsequently, Bansilal (petitioner) arrived at the scene and claimed ownership of the Bolero Camper, acknowledging the presence of the plastic bottles containing petrol-like substance in the vehicle's rear compartment. The police official seized the articles, and subsequently filed the FIR. Hence, the misc. petition.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, relies on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1361/2014 & Ors.; Karamjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 02.02.2016.The relevant of which is extracted below :

    “These orders as well as the State Government's Control Order of 1990 have all been issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act. They submit that the Central Government's Control Orders would have an over-riding effect on a Control order issued by the State Government as they all cover the same subject. They rely on the notification dated 10.04.2006 issued by the State Government under the Control Order, 2005 whereby, officers not below the rank of Additional DSO have been authorised to take action under the said Control Order. They further contend that under the Control Order of 1999, retail sale of petroleum products upto 2500 ltrs. is permissible to one person at a time.”

5. Conceded case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was nabbed with 400 litres of petrol and therefore, is liable to be tried under Section 3 read with 7 of the Essential commodities Act. However, on the reading of the aforesaid judgment, it’s ratio suggests otherwise. Not only that, the competent authority has also issued the notification dated 10.04.2006, as noted in the judgment supra, permitting 2500 litres of petrol to be transported by an individual.

6. On a court query, the learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the above mentioned notification or the ratio rendered in the judgment ibid. The aforesaid judgment has attained finality since it was not challenged.

7. In the premise, the petition is allowed and the FIR in question is quashed with consequences to follow.

8. In view of the quashing of the FIR, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the release of the vehicle in his favour. On approaching the competent authority with the copy of the instant order, the needful be done forthwith.

9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top