SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(MP) 1166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
S.K. PALO, J.
Banti Gupta - Petitioners
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondents
Misc. Criminal Case No. 6729 of 2015
Decided On : 30-09-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sanjay Bahirani.
For the Respondents: Rajendra Singh Yadav, P.P.

The court emphasized the need for clear allegations in the FIR to constitute a cognizable offence and the requirement of prior permission from the Collector for initiating action under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

Headnote:

Essential Commodities Act - Quashing of FIR - Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 7 of the Act

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR registered for offences under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner argued that the FIR was not valid as the Assistant Sub-Inspector did not have jurisdiction to seize the article and register the offence under the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the FIR did not clearly show which order under Section 3 of the Act had been violated, and the police party had not obtained prior permission from the Collector before registering the FIR or seizing the articles. The court held that the prosecution at the instance of police authority against the petitioner was bad in the eyes of the law and deserved to be quashed.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Assistant Sub-Inspector to register the offence under the Essential Commodities Act, violation of Control Order, and the validity of the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous cases to establish that the allegations in the FIR did not constitute a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers. It also emphasized the need for prior permission from the Collector for initiating action under Section 7 of the Act.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner was quashed.

ORDER :

S.K. PALO, J.

1. Heard. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No. 817/2012 at Police Station City Kotwali, Morena for the offences punishable under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Factual matrix of the case remain as under;

"Assistant Sub-Inspector P.S. Yadav lodged an FIR at City Kotwali Morena on 12.10.2012 that at about 7:15 p.m. that during the patrolling at Gopalpura along with Head Constable Suresh and other constable Mahesh received information that one white colour Tata vehicle bearing registration No. M.P. 07L0683 was carrying kerosene of the Government fair price shop from Ampura Road to village Jarerua for storing. After informing the Panch witness Keshav Singh, the patrolling party were waiting for the said vehicle. The said vehicle arrived, police party stopped the same, besides the driver two other persons were seated in the vehicle. They tried to run away. They were apprehended. On asking their names, the driver informed his name as Kalicharan. He further informed that 7 drums of kerosene was being transported to village Jarerua by Sabharam Gurjar and Banti Gupta (the present petitioner) who tried to run away. The petitioner Banti Gupta and Sabharam were asked about the 7 drums of kerosene oil kept in the vehicle. They informed the police that it is the kerosene oil of the fair price shop, was being taken to Ganeshpura. They did not give satisfactory reply. Therefore, police after arrested them seized the blue kerosene belonged to the State Government and which was being taken for storing and selling in open market. In this regard no document has been produced by the accused persons nor they had any license to transport and storage the same."

2. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the FIR on the ground that the petitioner did not run any control shop under the Public Distribution System. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Shri P.S. Yadav has no jurisdiction to seize the article and registered the offence under "me Act".

3. The FIR can only be registered with the prior permission of Collector. It is prayed that the FIR lodged by Assistant Sub-Inspector A.S. Yadav is therefore, liable to be quashed.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, opposed the application and submitted that the blue coloured kerosene belongs to the fair price shop for supply under the Public Distribution System.

5. On perusal of me police diary, it is found that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, City Kotwali, Morena has lodged the FIR, saying that the seven drums of kerosene oil was seized by the police seems to be of fair price/control shop. Therefore, report has been lodged against all the three accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act.

6. Section 7 of "the Act" which provides the penalties that "the person contravenes any order made under Section 3" denotes that penalties can be imposed only when Section 3 of "the Act" is violated. But the FIR does not show which order has been violated or contravened. For better understanding, Section of "the Act" is reproduced here:--

7. Section 7 of "the Act" provides Penalties (1) if any person contravenes any order made under Section 3-

"(a) he shall be punishable

(i) in the case of any order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and

(ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine;

(provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months.

(b) any property in respect of which the order has been contravened shall be forfeited


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top