By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing an FIR at case crime No. 22 of 2009, under Sections 420, 423 and 424, IPC read with Section 22-A of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Sugarcane Act), at PS Pahasu, District Bulandshahr.

3. The FIR in this case was lodged by the District Sugarcane Officer, Bulandshahr on 10.2.2009 at 8.30 a.m. The allegation in the FIR were that an inspection was conducted on 6.2.2009 at 3.10 p.m. in M/s. Triveni Sugar Mills, Sabitgarh, a sugar-mill run by the company of which the petitioner was the occupier. It was found that there was a discrepancy of 15 kg between the weighment in the sugarcane loaded trollies in the weighbridge No. 2 compared to the empty trollies weighed by the weigbridge No. 4. The agricultulists were wrongly not given the slips prepared by the weighment committees but were given challan Nos. 156720 and 152387. Since 4.2.2009 the payment for sugarcane was made by cash and not by cheque. Payments for the sugarcane purchase between 15.1.2009 and 3.2.2009 have not been made. All these activities were described as a fraud on the agricultulists and the occupier (the petitioner) was held liable for the same.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, Pradeep Tyagi, was the occupier and he has wrongly been named as D.K. Tyagi in the FIR. In view of Section 23 of the Sugarcane Act there could be no prosecution under the aforesaid Sugarcane Act, except on a complaint made by or under the authority of the Cane Commissioner or the District Magistrate concerned. Under Section 23(2) there was also a provision for compounding of the offence on payment of composition fee and that prosecution ought not have been lodged against the petitioner without giving an opportunity. Some inaccuracies in weighment are permissible under Rule 33 of the Rules, 1954, framed under the said Sugarcane Act.

5. Our attention was also drawn to the entries in the weighment register (Annexure 4) maintained by the mill for contending that if at all the weighment as per the said record showed that an excess amount was noted therein, hence the petitioner could not be held guilty defrauding the farmers by underweighment. No complaint has been made by any farmer or cane grower.

6. As there are allegations also of commission of offences under Sections 420, 423 and 424, IPC apart from Section 22-A of the Sugarcane Act, hence the legal impediment, if any in the application of the Act will provide no ground for quashing of the FIR. The value of the defence material, i.e. notings regarding the calibration of the weighbridge (Annexure-4) and as to whether they resulted in overweighment or underweighment, and the extent of discrepancies in weighment, and whether they fall in permissible limits are all matters for consideration by the investigating agency or the trial Court and this Court cannot adjudicate on these questions of fact in this writ petition.

7. On a plain reading of the FIR therefore it cannot be said that prima facie no cognizable offence is disclosed or that there are any legal fetters on the conduct of the investigation. As on the facts of the present case, the final relief of quashing of the FIR cannot be granted, the ancillary relief of stay of arrest during investigation can also not be granted (vide the Constitution Bench decisions in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12, (para 6) and Under Article 143, of the Constitution of India; In the matter of, AIR 1965 SC 745 (para 137).

8. It is significant however that no complaint has been made by any cane-grower or purchaser and taking an overall view of the matter the offences and breaches, if any, appear more to be of a technical nature.

9. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court dated 23.3.09 in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC),