Back
1988 Supreme(All) 264
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G.B.Singh
MAHABIR PRASAD AGARWAL
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 05 May 1988
Crl. Mis. case No. 259 of 1988
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are limited, and the court should not examine the merits of the case or go beyond the averments contained in the first information report when considering a petition to quash proceedings.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTIONS 3/7 - U. P. OIL SEEDS AND OIL SEED PRODUCTS CONTROL ORDER, 1966 - U. P. FOOD GRAINS DEALERS (LICENSING AND RESTRICTION ON HOARDING) ORDER, 1976 - U. P. ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (DISPLAY OF PRICES AND STOCK AND CONTROL OF SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION) ORDER, 1977 - INSPECTION OF PREMISES - SHORTAGE IN STOCK - ABSENCE OF ENTRIES IN SATTI BAHI - KEEPING OF STOCK IN PREMISES OTHER THAN LICENSED PREMISES - PRIMAFACIE CASE - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - INTERPRETATION OF CONTROL ORDERS - POWERS OF MARKETING INSPECTOR.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, a wholesale dealer and commission agent of food grains, oil seeds, and pulses, challenged the proceedings initiated against them under the Essential Commodities Act, alleging shortage in stock, absence of entries in their Satti Bahi, and keeping stock in premises other than those specified in their licenses. They sought to quash the proceedings and prevent their arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the first information report disclosed a prima facie case of cognizable offense against the petitioners. It found that the allegations of shortage in stock, absence of entries in the Satti Bahi, and keeping stock in unauthorized premises constituted contraventions of the provisions of the relevant Central Orders.
Issues: 1. Whether the first information report disclosed a prima facie case of cognizable offense against the petitioners? 2. Whether the Marketing Inspector had the authority to inspect the petitioners' premises?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the allegations in the first information report, if accepted at face value, made out a prima facie case of cognizable offense against the petitioners. It emphasized that the scope of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is limited, and the High Court should not examine the merits of the case or go beyond the averments contained in the first information report. 2. The court found that the Marketing Inspector had the authority to inspect the petitioners' premises under the provisions of the U. P. Oil Seeds and Oil Seed Products Control Order, 1966, and the U. P. Food Grains (Dealers and Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order 1966.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners had not made out a case for interference with the investigation or for staying their arrest during the pendency of the petition.
This is petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C to quash the proceedings arising out of the First Information Report Annexure No. 1 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and directing the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioners in connection with the crime registered on the basis of that report.
2. Mahabir Prasad petitioner No. 1 is the proprietor and Ayodhya Prasad Dubey petitioner No. 2 is the Munim of the Firm M/s Mahabir Trading Company, Payagpur district Bahraich. The firm is whole sellor of food-grains, oil seeds and pulses and Commission Agent of food-grains, pulses etc. On 24-3-1988 at about 2 p. m. the premises of the firm were inspected by Shri Sarvesh Narain Gaur, Marketing Inspector Payagpur opposite party No. 2 along with some other Marketing Inspectors and members of the police force. Mahabir Prasad petitioner No. 1 was not present at the shop. According to the first information report Ayodhya Prasad Dubey Munim petitioner No. (six) was present at the time of inspection but it has been disputed in the petition. The Marketing Inspector found shortage in the stock paddy, Khali and Alsi. According to the First Information Report the paddy was short by 11 bags, Khali was short by 2 bags, one quintal and 50 Kilograms in weight and Alsi was short by one bag 90 kilograms in weight. It was also alleged in the first information report that 356 quintals 40 kilograms maize was sold on 20-2-1988 but it was not shown in the Satti Bahi. Similarly Khali sold on 16-2-1988 and 9-3-1988 was not shown in the Satti Bahi of the firm. The petitioners alleged that there was no shortage in the stock as alleged in the first information report and relevant entries were made in the account books. It was also alleged in the first information report that the food grains, oil seeds and other articles were kept in the premises which were not provided in the licences granted to the firm. With regard to it, has been alleged in the petitioner that the petitioners had given intimation about it to the authorities concerned much before the inspection. According to the first information report, the proprietor and the Munim committed breach of the provisions of the U. P. Food Grains Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1976, U. P. Oil Seeds and Oil Seed Products Control Order, 1966 and U. P. Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977 and thereby an offence punishable under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities. Act. The petitioners contend that they did not commit any breach of the provisions of these Control Orders. It has also been pleaded by them in the petition that the Marketing Inspector had no right to inspect the premises and Ayodhya Prasad Dabay Munim who has been shown present in the first information report was not at the shop on account of his illness. The petitioners, therefore, contend that they did not commit any offence under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and the proceedings arising out of the first information report should be quashed and the petitioners may not be arrested.
3. Head learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Assistant Government Adocate who put in appearance on behalf of the State.
4. In the present case the petitioners did not make any prayer for quashing the first information report. It seems that they have not prayed for it in view of the observations made in Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2229 and State of Punjab v. Dharm Singh and others, 1978 (Suppl) SCC 89].
5. It has been held in Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (supra) that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C cannot quash first information report more so when the police had not even commenced the investigation and no pr
