Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sujoy Paul, J.
Savita Devi (Smt.) v. State of M.P.
Criminal Revision No.265 of 2010 (Gwalior); Decided on 2.9.2015.
Held : 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.
[Para 10
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.154 -- FIR -- validity of -- non-mention of violation of particular control order of section 3 of EC Act in FIR -- mere on such basis -- FIR is not bad in law. [Para 10
(3) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 -- Ss. 3 and 7 -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.397/401 -- applicability of section 7 of the Act -- violation of any order under section 3 -- not mentioned in FIR/charge -- mentioning and establishing violation of order is sine qua non for attracting penal clause under section 7 of Act -- but mere on this basis -- charge should not be mechanically set aside -- necessary directions may be issued to specify 'order' to give clear picture to accused about allegation against him -- it is necessary to attract section 7 of Act -- defect is curable.
Held : Plain reading of section 7 shows that for attracting this section of the EC Act, the primary requirement is that there must be violation of an "order". In other words, for attracting section 7 of the EC Act, the essential requirement is an "order", the violation of which is alleged. Precisely for this reason, in Hema Bhadoriya (supra), and aforesaid other judgments of this Court, the FIR/charge has been set aside because it did not disclose about the "order". Thus, mentioning and establishing violation of an order is sine qua non for attracting penal clause under section 7 of the EC Act. To this extent, I respectfully agree with the view taken by this Court in Hema Bhadoriya (supra), and other cases referred above.
In view of the principle laid down by Supreme Court, it can be safely concluded that if particular of "order" is not mentioned in the charge, the charge should not be mechanically set aside. The necessary directions may be issued to specify the 'order' in order to give a clear picture to the accused about the allegations mentioned against him. This is necessary to attract section 7 of the EC Act. It being a curable defect may be permitted to be corrected.
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. 2008(1) EFR 198 and 2009(1) EFR 357 relied on. (2004)7 SCC 490, (2011)9 SCC 234, (2014)8 SCC 340, (2013)1 SCC 217, (2004)5 SCC 334, (2009)6 SCC 372, (2009)12 SCC 546 and (2014)11 SCC 538 followed.
[Para 19
(4) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 -- Ss.10(1), 10(2), 3 and 7 -- whether President of society can be arrayed as accused in FIR -- fair price shop running by society -- complaint about non-distribution of kerosene, food stuff etc. properly -- charges show -- that wheat and kerosene dishonestly used by President for her own use -- her name can be arrayed as accused in FIR -- at the stage of charge -- no interference called for.
Held : 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 .... at this stage, I am unable to agree with the contention that the petitioner cannot be arrayed as an accused in the FIR.
Thus, I am unable to hold that the petitioner cannot be arrayed as an accused in the FIR. (1984)4 SCC 352, (2000)1 SCC 1 and (2012)9 SCC 460 followed. Miscellenaous Criminal Case No.8283/2011 and 2009(1) EFR 603 distinguished.
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.5, 409 and 420 -- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 -- Ss.3 and 7 -- offence under provision of section 3 of Act -- is punishable under section 7 of Act -- sections 409 and 420 of IPC not eclipsed section 7 of Act -- at stage of charge -- in revisional jurisdiction -- it cannot be said that sections 409 and 420 of IPC are not attracted -- finding in this regard can be given only after recording of evidence. (1992)4 SCC 711, AIR 1958 SC 141, AIR 1961 SC 578 and AIR 1962 SC 1821 followed. AIR 1925 PC 130 relied on. 2010(2) EFR 500 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2967 of 2008 distinguished. [Paras 23 & 24
¼1½ vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 3 rFkk 7 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 409 rFkk 420 && mica/kksa ds v/khu vijk/k && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ && dh fofèkekU;rk && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa fof'k"V fu;a=.k vkns'k ds vfrØe.k dk mYys[k u djuk && ek= ,sls vk/kkj i= && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ fof/k dh n`f"V ls nks"kiw.kZ ugha gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % eSa ;kph ds bl izfrfojks/k esa dksbZ lkj ugha ikrk gw¡ fd izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ fof/k dh n`f"V ls nks"kiw.kZ gS D;ksafd mlesa fdlh fof'k"V fu;a=.k vkns'k ds vfrØe.k dk mYys[k ugha gSA ¼2003½6 ,l lh lh 175 rFkk ¼2009½9 ,l lh lh 719 vuqlfjrA
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 154 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ && dh fofèkekU;rk && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds fof'k"V fu;a=.k vkns'k dk mYys[k u djuk && ek= bl vk/kkj ij && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ fof/k dh n`f"V ls nks"kiw.kZ ugha gSA ¼iSjk 10
¼3½ vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 3 rFkk 7 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397@401 && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dk ykxw gksuk && /kkjk 3 ds v/khu dksbZ vkns'k dk vfrØe.k gksuk && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ@vkjksi esa mYys[k ugha && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dk 'kkfLrd [kaM vkdf"kZr djus ds fy, vkns'k ds vfrØe.k dk mYys[k djuk vkSj LFkkfir djuk vfuok;Z gS && fdarq ek= bl vk/kkj ij && vkjksi ;a=or~ vikLr ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, && vfHk;qDr dks mlds fo#) vfHkdFkuksa ds fo"k; esa fofufnZ"V ßvkns'kÞ dk Li"V o.kZu nsus ds fy, vko';d funsZ'k fn, tk ldrs gSa && /kkjk 7 dks vkdf"kZr djus ds fy, ;g vko';d gS && =qfV lk/; gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % /kkjk 7 ds Li"V 'kCnksa esa i<+us ij nf'kZr gS fd vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e dh bl /kkjk dks vkdf"kZr djus ds fy,] ßvkns'kÞ dk vfrØe.k gksuk izkFkfed vis{kk gSA vU; 'kCnksa esa] vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 vkdf"kZr djus ds fy, ßvkns'kÞ vko';d vis{kk gS] ftldk vfrØe.k gksuk vfHkdfFkr gSA izFker% bl dkj.k ls] gsek HknkSfj;k ¼iwoksZDr½] esa vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds vU; fu.kZ;ksa esa] izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ@vkjksi vikLr fd, x, gSa] D;ksafd ;g ßvkns'kÞ ds fo"k; esa izdV ugha djrsA bl izdkj] vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 ds v/khu 'kkfLrd [kaM vkdf"kZr djus ds fy, vkns'k ds vfrØe.k dk mYys[k djuk ,oa LFkkfir djuk vfuok;Z gSA bl lhek rd bl U;k;ky; }kjk gsek HknkSfj;k ¼iwoksZDr½] vkSj mi;qZDr vU; fufnZ"V izdj.kksa esa O;Dr fd, x, er ls eSa leknjlfgr lger gw¡A ¼iSjk 13
mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kdfFkr fl)kar dks /;ku esa j[krs gq,] fuf'pr :i ls ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk ldrk gS fd ;fn vkjksi esa fdlh fof'k"V ßvkns'kÞ dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gS] vkjksi ;a=or~ vikLr ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A vfHk;qDr dks mlds fo#) dfFkr vfHkdFkuksa ds fo"k; esa Li"V o.kZu nsus ds mn~ns'; ls ßvkns'kÞ fofufnZ"V djus ds fy, vko';d funsZ'k fn, tk ldrs gSaA vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 vkdf"kZr djus ds fy, ;g vko';d gSA ;g lk/; =qfV gksus ls 'kq) fd;k tkuk vuqKkr fd;k tk ldrk gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i] esjh jk; esa ;fn vkjksi Ø-3 esa ßvkns'kÞ mfYyf[kr ugha gS] bl vk/kkj ij vkjksi&i= vikLr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA eSa fupys U;k;ky; dks ßvkns'kÞ dk mYys[k dj vkjksi Ø-3 dh iqu% fojpuk djus dk funs'k nsuk mfpr le>rk gw¡ ftldk ;kph }kjk vfHkdfFkr :i ls vfrØe.k fd;k x;k gSA 2008¼1½ bZ ,Q vkj 198 rFkk 2009¼1½ bZ ,Q vkj 357 voyafcrA ¼2004½7 ,l lh lh 490] ¼2011½9 ,l lh lh 234] ¼2014½8 ,l lh lh 340] ¼2013½1 ,l lh lh 217] ¼2004½5 ,l lh lh 334] ¼2009½6 ,l lh lh 372] ¼2009½12 ,l lh lh 546 rFkk ¼2014½11 ,l lh lh 538 vuqlfjrA
¼4½ vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 10¼1½] 10¼2½] 3 rFkk 7 && D;k izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa lfefr ds v/;{k dk uke vfHk;qDr ds :i esa fy[kk tk ldrk gS && lfefr }kjk mfpr ewY; dh nqdku dk lapkyu && feV~Vh dk rsy] [kk| inkFkZ vkfn dk mfpr :i ls forj.k u djus ds fo"k; esa f'kdk;r && vkjksiksa ls nf'kZr && fd v/;{k }kjk Lo;a ds miHkksx ds fy, csbZekuh ls xsag¡ ,oa feV~Vh dk rsy iz;qDr fd;k && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa mldk uke vfHk;qDr ds :i esa fy[kk tk ldrk gS && vkjksi ds izØe ij && gLr{ksi visf{kr ughaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;kph ds varxZzLr gksus dh izd`fr vfHk;kstu }kjk lk{; izLrqr dj LFkkfir dh tk ldrh gSA bl izØe ij] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ;kph ds fo#) vkjksi ugha curkA ---- bl izØe ij] eSa bl izfrfojks/k ls lger gksus esa vleFkZ gw¡ fd izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa ;kph dk uke vfHk;qDr ds :i esa ugha fy[kk tk ldrkA
bl izdkj] eSa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa vleFkZ gw¡ fd izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa ;kph dk uke vfHk;qDr ds :i esa ugha fy[kk tk ldrkA ¼1984½4 ,l lh lh 352] ¼2000½1 ,l lh lh 1 rFkk ¼2012½9 ,l lh lh 460 vuqlfjrA izdh.kZ vkijkf/kd ekeyk Ø-8283@2011 ,oa 2009¼1½ bZ ,Q vkj 603 izHksfnrA
¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 5] 409 rFkk 420 && vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 3 rFkk 7 && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds mica/k ds v/khu vijk/k && vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 7 ds v/khu naMuh; gS && Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 409 ,oa 420 vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dks fuLrst ugha djrha && vkjksi ds izØe ij && iqujh{k.k vf/kdkfjrk esa && ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 409 ,oa 420 vkdf"kZr ugha gksrh gSa && bl lacaèk esa fu"d"kZ dsoy lk{; vfHkfyf[kr djus ds i'pkr~ fn;k tk ldrk gSA ¼1992½4 ,l lh lh 711] , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 141] , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 578 rFkk , vkb vkj 1962 ,l lh 1821 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1925 ih lh 130 voyafcrA 2010¼2½ bZ ,Q vkj 500 rFkk izdh.kZ vkijkf/kd ekekyk Ø-2967@2008 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 23 ,oa 24
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 317 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 section 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 section
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
