Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sujoy Paul, J.
Savita Devi v. State of M.P.
Criminal Revision No.265 of 2010 (Gwalior) : against the order
dated 19.2.2010 whereby Court below framed charges against petitioner; Decided on 2.9.2015.
Held : The only requirement is that at the time of lodging FIR, the informant should state all those facts which normally strike to mind and help in assessing the gravity of the crime or identity of the culprit, briefly. As per the said legal position, I find no substance in the contention of the petitioner that FIR is bad in law because violation of particular control order is not mentioned therein. (2003)6 SCC 175 and (2009)9 SCC 719 followed.
In the result, in my view, if “order” is not mentioned in charge No.3, charge-sheet cannot be set aside on this ground. I deem it proper to direct the Court below to reframe charge No.3 by mentioning “order”, which is allegedly violated by the petitioner. In the interest of justice, it is made clear that if prosecution is unable to show any order, which is allegedly violated by the petitioner, it will be open for the Court below to exonerate the petitioner from the charge No.3 without putting him to any further trial. 2008(1) EFR 198 and 2009(1) EFR 357 distinguished. (2004)7 SCC 490 followed. (2011)9 SCC 234, (2014)8 SCC 340, (2003)1 SCC 217, (2004)5 SCC 334, (2009)12 SCC 546 and (2014)11 SCC 538 referred to.
(2) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 -- Ss.10(1) and 10(2) -- allegations against petitioner are specific -- nature of petitioner's involvement -- can be established by prosecution by leading evidence -- at this stage -- it cannot be said that charge against petitioner not made out -- section 10 deals with offence by companies, not by society -- it cannot be held that petitioner cannot be arrayed as an accused in FIR.
Held : Section 10 of the EC Act basically deals with the offences by the companies. Admittedly, the cooperative society, of which the petitioner is President, is not a company. The allegations against the petitioner in charge No.1 are specific. The nature of petitioner’s involvement can be established by prosecution by leading evidence. At this stage, it cannot be said that charge against the petitioner is not made out. (1984)4 SCC 352 and (2000)1 SCC 1 referred to. 1990(1) EFR 1, 2009(1) EFR 603, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7283/2011 and (2012)9 SCC 460 distinguished.
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.5, 409 and 420 -- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 -- Ss.3 and 7 -- section 7 prescribes a different offence -- sections 409 and 420 not eclips section 7 of EC Act -- section 409 of IPC not confined to public servant only -- it is applicable to banker, merchant, broker, attorney or agent also -- prosecution can establish that petitioner is an agent or falls in some other category -- if cannot be said that sections 409 and 420, IPC not attracted -- a finding in this regard can be given only after recording of evidence -- charge framed against petitioner is in accordance with law -- interference is warranted only to extent in charge No.3 -- rest of charges are upheld -- petition disposed of.
Held : In my humble opinion, section 409 IPC is not confined to “public servant” only, it is applicable to banker, merchant, broker, attorney or agent also. The prosecution while leading evidence can establish that the petitioner is an agent or falls in some other category mentioned in section 409 IPC. At this stage, it cannot be said that sections 409 and 420 IPC are not attracted. A finding in this regard can be given only after recording of evidence. AIR 1925 PC 130, AIR 1958 SC 141, AIR 1961 SC 578 and AIR 1962 SC 1821 referred to.
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397] 401] 215] 216 rFkk 464 && vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 3] 2¼x½ rFkk 2¼xx½ && vkjksi fojfpr djus ds fo#) ;kfpdk && lkslkbVh }kjk lapkfyr mfpr ewY; dh nqdku && ftlds fo#) f'kdk;r] xsgw¡ dsjksflu rFkk vU; [kk| inkFkZ ds forj.k ds laca/k esa && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky && vkjksi fojfpr && iqujh{k.k esa vk{ksfir && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djrs le; vko';drk && mu lHkh rF;ksa dk la{ksi esa dFku djuk tks lkekU;r% efLr"d esa vk?kkr djrs gSa rFkk vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dk fu/kkZj.k djus esa ;k vijk/kh dks igpkuus esa lgk;rk djrs gSa && ;fn vkjksi&i= Ø-3 esa ßvkns'kÞ mfYyf[kr ugha fd;k x;k && vkjksi bl vkèkkj ij vikLr ugha fd;k tk ldrk && ;g fuokjd ;ksX; nks"k gksus ls && Bhd djus ds fy, vuqKk nh tk ldrh gS && ekeys dks okil fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks mfpr :i ls vkjksi fojfpr djus ds fy, izfrizsf"kr djus dh vko';drk gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr %,dek= vko';drk gS fd izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djrs le; bfÙkyk nsus okys dks mu lHkh rF;ksa dk la{ksi esa dFku djuk pkfg, tks lkekU;r% efLr"d esa vk?kkr djrs gSa rFkk ekeys dh xaHkhjrk dk fu/kkZj.k djus esa ;k vijk/kh dh igpku djus esa lgk;rk djrs gSaA dfFkr fof/kd fLFkfr ds vuqlkj] eSa ;kph ds izfrokn esa dksbZ lkj ugha ikrk gw¡ fd izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ fof/k esa nwf"kr gS] D;ksafd fo'ks"k fu;a=.k ßvkns'kÞ dk blesa mYys[k ugha gSA ¼2003½6,l lh lh 175 rFkk ¼2009½9,l lh lh 719 vuqlfjrA
esjh n`f"V esa] ;fn ßvkns'kÞ vkjksi&i= Ø-3 esa mfYyf[kr ugha fd;k tkrk gS] vkjksi&i= bl vk/kkj ij vikLr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA eSa fupys U;k;ky; dks] ßvkns'kÞ dk mYys[k djrs gq, vkjksi&i= Ø-3 dks iqu% fojfpr djus ds fy, funsf'kr djuk mfpr le>rk gw¡ ftldk dfFkr :i ls ;kph }kjk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA U;k;fgr esa ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn vfHk;ksxh dksbZ vkns'k nf'kZr djus esa vleFkZ gS] ftldk fd dfFkr :i ls ;kph }kjk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS] fupyk U;k;ky; ;kph dks vkjksi&i= Ø-3 ls mls vkxs fdlh fopkj.k ds fcuk NksM+us ds fy, Lora= jgsxkA 2008¼1½ b,Q vkj 198 rFkk 2009¼1½ b,Q vkj 357 izHksfnrA ¼2004½7,l lh lh 490 vuqlfjrA ¼2011½9,l lh lh 234] ¼2014½8,l lh lh 340] ¼2003½1,l lh lh 217] ¼2004½5,l lh lh 334] ¼2009½12,l lh lh 546 rFkk ¼2014½11,l lh lh 538 fufnZ"VA
¼2½ vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 10¼1½ rFkk 10¼2½ && ;kph ds fo#) fofufnZ"V vfHkdFku && ;kph ds varxzZLr gksus dh izÑfr vfHk;ksxh }kjk lk{; iznf'kZr dj LFkkfir dh tk ldrh gS && bl izØe ij && ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ;kph ds fo#) vkjksi ugha curk gS && /kkjk 10 daifu;ksa }kjk vijk/k ds fo"k; esa gS] lkslkbVh }kjk ugha && ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd ;kph dks izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa vfHk;qDr dh rjg ugha tksM+k tk ldrkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 vk/kkj :i ls daifu;ksa }kjk vijk/k ds fo"k; esa gSA LohÑr :i ls lgdkjh lkslkbVh ftldk ;kph v/;{k gS] daiuh ugha gSA ;kph ds fo#) vkjksi&i= Ø-3 esa vfHkdFku fofufnZ"V gSA ;kph ds varxZzLr gksus dh izÑfr vfHk;ksxh }kjk lk{; iznf'kZr dj LFkkfir dh tk ldrh gSA bl izØe ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ;kph ds fo#) vkjksi ugha curk gSA ¼1984½4,l lh lh 352 rFkk ¼2000½1,l lh lh 1 fufnZ"VA 1990¼1½ b,Q vkj 1] 2009¼1½ b,Q vkj 603] izdh.kZ vkijkf/kd ekeyk Ø-7283@2011 rFkk ¼2012½9,l lh lh 460 izHksfnrA
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 5] 409 rFkk 420 && vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 3 rFkk 7 && /kkjk 7 fHkUu vijk/k fofgr djrh gS && /kkjk 409 rFkk 420 vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dks <¡drh ugha gS && Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 409 dsoy yksd lsod rd lhfer ugha gS && ;g cSadj] O;kikjh] nyky] U;k;oknh ;k vfHkdrkZ dks Hkh ykxw gksrh gS && vfHk;ksxh LFkkfir dj ldrk gS ;kph vfHkdrkZ gS ;k fdlh vU; Js.kh esa vkrk gS && ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 409 rFkk 420 vkdf"kZr ugha gqbZ && bl lacaèk esa fu"d"kZ dsoy lk{; vfHkfyf[kr fd, tkus ds i'pkr~ fn;k tk ldrk gS && ;kph ds fo#) fojfpr vkjksi fof/k vuqlkj gS && gLr{ksi dsoy vkjksi&i= Ø-3 rd vko';d gS && 'ks"k vkjksi iq"V fd, tkrs gSa && ;kfpdk fuiVkbZ tkrh gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % esjs fouez fopkj esa] Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 409 dsoy yksd lsod rd lhfer ugha gS] ;g cSadj] O;kikjh] U;k;oknh ;k vfHkdrkZ dks Hkh ykxw gSA vfHk;ksxh lk{; iznf'kZr djrs le; LFkkfir dj ldrk gS fd ;kph vfHkdrkZ gS ;k Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 409 esa mfYyf[kr fdlh vU; Js.kh esa vkrk gSA bl Lrj ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 409 rFkk 420 vkdf"kZr ugha gqbZA bl laca/k esa fu"d"kZ dsoy lk{; vfHkfyf[kr djus ds i'pkr~ fn;k tk ldrk gSA, vkb vkj 1925 ih lh 130], vkb vkj 1958,l lh 141], vkb vkj 1961,l lh 578 rFkk, vkb vkj 1962,l lh 1821 fufnZ"VA
1. This revision filed under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) assails the order dated 19.2.2010, whereby the Court below has framed charges against the petitioner.
2. It is stated by the petitioner that she is President of Ambika Gramin Mahila Bahuddesiya Sanstha Maryadit, Asnet, District Bhind. The said society is running fair price shop and is governed by the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (EC Act). It is stated that one Arjun Singh r/o Kunwarpura preferred a complaint to the Government that kerosene, food stuff etc. are not being distributed properly by the fair price shop. Inspection was carried out on 7.5.2008 by Assistant Supply Officer. After the inspection, FIR was registered pursuant to written report dated 7.5.2008 by Assistant Supply Officer. The offence under section 3/7 of EC Act as well as under sections 409 and 420 IPC was registered against the petitioner.
3. In due course, challan was filed before Sessions Judge, Bhind, from where it was transferred to First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind. The said Court by impugned order framed the charge against the petitioner.
4. Shri Sanjay Bahirani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the FIR and charge framed by the trial Court is silent about violation of any particular Control Order. Hence, no charge can be framed by trial Court under section 3/7 of EC Act. The said section can be invoked when it is found that the person contravened any order made under section 3 of EC Act. In support of this contention, he relied on 2008(1) EFR 198 (Hema Bhadoriya v. State of M.P.); 2009 (1) EFR 357 (Kunwar Singh Bhadoriya v. State); Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 8836/2013 (Jodh Singh and others v. State of M.P.); Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 2967/2008 (Mahesh Chourasiya v. State of M.P.). Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner could not have been arrayed as an accused in the FIR merely because she is the President of the society. The prosecution has no evidence to implead the petitioner as an accused in the FIR. The action of respondent is contrary to sections 10(1) and 10(2) of EC Act. To elaborate, Shri Bahirani contends that in absence of specific pleading in the FIR regarding the role of the petitioner being President of society, no FIR can be permitted to stand. In other words, it is urged that there is no pleading in the FIR that petitioner being a President was responsible to look after the affairs of day to day business of fair price shop and, therefore, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner was responsible person for committing the offence. It is argued that similar sections, like section 10 of EC Act, are there in various statutes like Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act etc. After considering the said enactments, the apex Court quashed similar proceedings. Reliance is placed on 1990(1) EFR 1 (Sham Sunder v. State of Haryana); 2008(1) EFR 198 (Hema Bhadoriya v. State); 2009(1) EFR 603 (Vimla Devi v. State of M.P.); Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7283/2011 (Piyush Gupta v. State of M.P.).
5. The next submission of Shri Bahirani is that once FIR is registered under a special statute, i.e., EC Act, the provision of Indian Penal Code would not be attracted. Reliance is placed on 2010(2) EFR 500 (Pepsico Indian Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P.). Lastly, it is urged that even otherwise necessary ingredients for invoking sections 409 and 420 IPC are not available in the FIR/charge. To bolster this, it is submitted that in the FIR, it is not mentioned that any property was entrusted to the petitioner or she was holding the property in her capacity as public servant or doing her business as banker, merchant, broker, attorney or agent etc. Hence, no case is made out by the prosecution regarding criminal breach of trust in respect of property. He contends that in the FIR, it is not mentioned that the petitioner cheated any one and, therefore, no case under sect
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
