1. Applicant has preferred the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.347/2015 at Police Station Madhoganj District Gwalior for the offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short ‘ the EC Act’).

2. Facts of the case in short are that the applicant is a proprietor of Bapu Indane Gas and prosecuting a gas agency of Indane Gas. On 14.5.2015, the officer of Weights and Measurements empowered under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (hereinafter it would be referred as ‘the LM Act’) inspected the shop of the applicant and found that 24 gas cylinders were kept by the applicant in a vehicle MKW 2826 and on weighing 7 cylinders were found to be underweight and therefore, the case was registered under the LM Act. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application to compound the offence and the offence was compounded. After that, intimation was given to the District Supply Controller, Gwalior who sent a letter to take action against the applicant under the EC Act but the Deputy Controller of Weights and Measurements had informed that after compromise no prosecution can be initiated under the LM Act due to the provisions of section 48(5) of the LM Act. Ultimately, the FIR was lodged by the Junior Food Supply Officer, Gwalior (Smt. Pooja Sikarwar) at Police Station Madhoganj District Gwalior for the offence under section 3/7 of the EC Act.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at motion stage on 25.2.2016.

4. It was mainly contended by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the provisions of sections 48(5) and 51 of the LM Act, no further prosecution could be initiated against the applicant. Secondly, clause 13 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 (in short ‘the Control Order’) gives a right of inspection to the officer of Food Department and without such inspection, the Officer of the Food Department cannot initiate the proceedings against the applicant. Thirdly, such proceedings are against the provisions of section 300 of CrPC. In this connection, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and another [(2011)2 SCC 703]. Reliance is also placed on the order dated 12.3.2015 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Gupta v. State of M.P. [Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.4086/2008], in which it is held that no second prosecution can be initiated in the light of the provisions of section 300 of CrPC. Fourthly, it was also submitted that since the applicant did not flout clause 5 of the Control Order, therefore, no offence under section 7 of the EC Act is made out. It was not established that the applicant sold some gas cylinders containing lesser quantity of the gas to any consumer, therefore, it was prayed that the registration of second crime should be quashed.

5. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that the LM Act is a special enactment which governs the penal provisions of that Act itself and the food controller did not direct the officer of the LM Act to prosecute the applicant for any penal provision of the LM Act, therefore, for registration of a crime under the EC Act there is no bar of sections 48 (5) or section 51 of the LM Act because the bar created under that provision is that after acceptance of compromise, no further prosecution under that Act will be initiated but it was not mentioned that if simultaneously any other crime was constituted then other crime which was not of the LM Act cannot be registered or the accused cannot be prosecuted for other crime. The provisions of sections 48(5) and 51 of the LM Act are only binding on the officers of the LM Act not to prosecute the accused for any offence under the LM Act when