Non-compliance with statutory requirements for fixing storage limits and absence of prescribed license fee for dealing in essential commodities can vitiate criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding/prosecution including the First Information Report, in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No. 319 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 4499 of 2015, lodged for the offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh.

3. On the written report of one Chandra Shekhar Singh, Supply Inspector dated 24.10.2015, in which it has been alleged that on 24.10.2015 at about 4 PM the business premises of the petitioner was searched and from his premises Mustard Oil and Refined Oil total 787.76 quintals recovered. It has been alleged that the said quantity is more than the storage limit fixed by the authority dated 19.10.2015 and accordingly, he has lodged this case against the petitioner and prepared a seizure list and the letter dated 19.10.2015 issued vide letter No. 4985/2015.

4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Department, Government of Jharkhand had issued a letter on 19.10.2015, on the basis of which, a raid was conducted in the shop of the petitioner and 787.76 quintals of different brands of edible oil were seized with the allegation that the storage limit for the edible oil is 300 quintals for category town. He further submits that the letter dated 19.10.2015, issued by the Secretary, Food Supplies, does not disclose that prior concurrence of the Central Government was obtained in terms of Section 18 of Bihar Trade Articles (Licensing and Unification) order, 1984 neither was there any gazette notification by the State Government. He further submits that the required time limit of 45 days was not provided for disposing of the articles in terms of Section 12 of the Unification Order, 1984. He further submits that at the time of purchase of the articles, there was no storage limit fixed by the government and it is only after the issuance of the said letter that the storage limit was fixed. On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire criminal proceeding is bad in law.

5. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the Government of Jharkhand issued notification on 09.03.2015 fixing the storage limit of edible oil and the maximum storage limit was enhanced to 500 quintals and the period of operation of the notification was extended from time to time. He further submits that on the date when the raid was conducted the notification of the State Government was in operation and, therefore, having found the edible oil over and above the storage limit fixed by the notification dated 09.03.2015, the articles were rightly seized and criminal prosecutions were instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and in such circumstances, therefore, there is no cause for interference in these criminal proceedings.

6. Clause 18 specifies fixation of storage limit by the State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government by issuing a notification in the official Gazette. The primary requirement of complying Clause 18 of the Unification Order is of prior concurrence of the Central Government and publication of the notification in the official Gazette. None of the requirement seems to have been fulfilled as the State Government has straightway in the purported exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act had issued the notification fixing 500 quintal as the storage limit.

7. Neither the notification nor the counter affidavits filed by the State disclose about the compliance of the statutory requirement as envisaged under Clause 18 of the Unification Order. Such non-compliance would automatically lead to the conclusion that on the date when the inspection was mad