Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Jagdish Kushwah v. State of M.P.
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2643 of 2011 (Gwalior) ;
Decided on 19.1.2017.
Sanjay Bahirani for applicant;
Prakhar Dhengula, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State.
Headnote:Essential Commodities Act, 1955 -- Ss.3/7 and 10A -- M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009 -- Cl.11.5 -- FIR lodged on basis of complaint and report of Assistant Supply Officer -- charge sheet filed and charges also framed against applicant -- challenged -- by virtue of his post Manager -- he is responsible for day to day business of Fair Price Shop being operated by Society -- word "only" cannot be read in Cl.11.5 of Order 2009 to quash FIR on ground that complaint not made by Collector police cannot register FIR on basis of complaint made by other person -- even if same discloses commission of cognizable offence -- when charge sheet filed and cognizance taken then investigating officer was competent or not is of no importance -- petition rejected.
Held : Therefore, it is clear that the word “Only” cannot be read in clause 11.5 of M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009 so as to quash the FIR on the ground that since, the complaint has not been made by the Collector, therefore, the Police cannot register the FIR on the basis of the complaint made by any other person, even if the same discloses the commission of cognizable offence.
When the charge sheet has been filed and the cognizance has been taken, then under this circumstance whether the investigating officer was competent to investigate the matter or not is of no importance. AIR 1955 SC 196 followed. (2008)5 SCC 257, (2016)9 SCC 64, (2014)2 SCC 1, (2006)11 SCC 1, (1990)2 SCC 378, AIR 1952 SC 362, (2004)3 SCC 48, (2012)9 SCC 552, (2008)4 SCC 755 and (2003)2 SCC 455 referred to.
vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 3@7 rFkk 10d & e-iz- lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns'k] 2009 & [kaM 11-5 & ifjokn rFkk lgk;d iwfrZ vf/kdkjh dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij izFke bfryk fjiksVZ nkf[ky & vkjksi i= izLrqr rFkk vkosnd ds fo:} vkjksi Hkh fojfpr & vk{ksfir & mlds izca/kd in ds vk/kkj ij & og lfefr }kjk lapkfyr mfpr ewY; nqdku ds fnu&izfrfnu ds dk;Z ds fy, mrjnk;h gS & 'kCn ^^dsoy** vkns'k 2009 ds [kaM 11-5 esa izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dks bl vk/kkj ij vfHk[kafMr djkus ds fy, ugha i<+k tk ldrk fd ifjokn dyDVj }kjk ugha fd;k x;k iqfyl vU; O;fDr }kjk dh xbZ f'kdk;r ds vk/kkj ij izFke bfryk jftLVj ugha dj ldrh & rc Hkh tc og laKs; vijk/k ?kfVr gksuk izdV djrh gS & tc vkjksi i= izLrqr dj fn;k x;k rFkk laKku ys fy;k x;k rc tk¡p vf/kdkjh l{ke Fkk ;k ugha ;g egRoiw.kZ ugha gS & ;kfpdk [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % blfy, ;g Li"V gS fd e-iz- lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns'k] 2009 dk [kaM bl vk/kkj ij izFke bfryk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMr djus ds fy, ugha i<+k tk ldrk fd pawfd ifjokn dyDVj }kjk ugha fd;k x;k blfy, iqfyl fdlh vU; O;fDr }kjk fd, ifjokn ds vk/kkj ij izFke bfryk fjiksVZ ntZ ugha dj ldrh rc Hkh tc fd ;fn o laKs; vijk/k ?kfVr gksuk izdV djrh gSA
tc vkjksi i= izLrqr dj fn;k x;k rFkk laKku ys fy;k x;k rc bl ifjfLFkfr esa fd D;k tk¡p vf/kdkjh ekeys dh tk¡p djus esa l{ke gS ;k ugha] dk dksbZ egRo ughaA , vkb vkj 1955 ,l lh 196 vuqlfjrA ¼2008½ 5 ,l lh lh 257] ¼2016½ 9 ,l lh lh 64] ¼2014½ 2 ,l lh lh 1] ¼2006½ 11 ,l lh lh 1] ¼1990½ 2 ,l lh lh 378] , vkb vkj 1952 ,l lh 362] ¼2004½ 3 ,l lh lh 48] ¼2012½ 9 ,l lh lh 552] ¼2008½ 4 ,l lh lh 755 rFkk ¼2003½ 2 ,l lh lh 455 fufnZ"VA
1. This petition under section 482 of CrPC has been filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2010 by which the cognizance has been taken against the applicant for offence punishable under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that the FIR in Crime No.203/2010 has been registered against the applicant and co-accused Sirnam Singh Kushwah on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Assistant Supply Officer. As per the enquiry report, several irregularities were found in the Fair Price Shop Nidanpur, Tahsil Chanderi, District Ashok Nagar in an inspection conducted on 16.3.2010. It was further alleged that on 18.3.2010 when again an inspection was sought to be done of Fair Price Shop Nidanpur, Tahsil Chanderi, District Ashok Nagar the same was found closed which shows that the salesman had deliberately closed the shop. With the help of one Om Prakash Jain who is Branch Manager of District Cooperative Bank, Branch Chanderi the lock of the shop was broken and 4.7 quintals of wheat, 7 quintals of sugar, 205 liters of kerosene oil and some more commodities were found but neither the stock register nor the sale register was found in the shop. It was alleged that although the food stuff meant for distribution under the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009 were supplied to the shop but the same were not distributed to the consumers.
3. The record of the trial Court was summoned by this Court. From the order sheets of the trial Court it appears that the charge sheet was filed against the applicant on 16.12.2010 and the charges were also framed.
4. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that he is working as Manager of the Society under whose control the Fair Price Shop is being run and, therefore, whatever illegalities or irregularities have been committed by the salesman, he cannot be vicariously made liable. It was further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in view of clause 11(5) of Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009 only the Collector can initiate the proceedings under section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and since in the present case the FIR has been lodged on the report of Assistant Supply Officer, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed on the ground that the same has been lodged on the information given by a non-competent person.
5. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that as the applicant is admittedly working on the post of Manager of the Society and, therefore, by virtue of his post it cannot be said that he is not responsible for the day to day working of the Society under whose control Fair Price Shop was being run.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that as the applicant is working on the post of Manager of the Society and, therefore, he cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of salesman. The contention raised by the applicant cannot be accepted as the applicant is working on the post of Manager of the Society under whose control the Fair Price Shop was being run and, therefore, by virtue of his post he is responsible for the day to day business of the Fair Price Shop being operated by the Society concerned. Accordingly, this contention raised by the counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected.
8. It is next contended by the counsel for the applicant that in view of clause 11(5) of M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009, “only” the Collector can initiate action under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that as in this case, the FIR has been registered on the basis of the letter written by the Assistant Supply Officer, and not the Collector, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
9. Before adverting to the contention raised by the counsel for the applicant, it would be appropriate t
