Prosecution for diversion of PDS rice under Clause 6(4) of the TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982, requires evidence of purchase from family card holders; a quality certificate or inadmissible third-party confession is insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings.

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.99 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli, for the alleged offence under Clause 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982, read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. The petitioner seeks to interdict the criminal proceedings on the ground that the very substratum of the prosecution case is legally untenable, unsupported by admissible evidence, and amounts to an abuse of the process of Court.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The prosecution case, as discernible from the First Information Report, charge sheet, and materials collected during investigation, in brief, is as follows:

On 19.12.2008, the second respondent, while on surveillance along with his subordinates and revenue officials, intercepted a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-46-A-3159. Upon inspection, the said vehicle was found to be carrying 250 bags of rice, each weighing 50 kilograms. Based on the said interception, a case came to be registered in Crime No.1156 of 2008 for the alleged offence under Clause 6(4) of the TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982, read with Section 7(1) (a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is the further case of the prosecution that the second petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, the first accused was the driver of the lorry, and the first petitioner was allegedly assisting the other accused. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report against the petitioners and another, which was taken on file as C.C.No.99 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tiruchirappalli.

Grounds urged for quash:

4. The petitioners assail the charge sheet primarily on the following grounds:

That the petitioners have been arrayed as accused solely on the basis of an alleged confession of one Palaniappan, who is neither an accused nor a cited witness in the case. That except for the alleged confession, there is absolutely no material, oral or documentary, to connect the petitioners with the alleged offence. That Clause 6(4) of the TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 contemplates purchase of scheduled commodities obtained on a family card, and in the absence of examination of any family card holder, the very ingredients of the offence are not made out. That the Quality Inspector who issued the quality certificate was not authorised under the Essential Commodities Act, and even otherwise, the certificate was not furnished to the petitioner to enable availing statutory remedies. That the learned Magistrate mechanically took cognizance without application of judicial mind, ignoring the settled principles governing cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. That the proceedings have been pending for more than 16 years, without any meaningful progress, causing serious prejudice to the petitioners. That the case squarely falls within the first and third categories laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ¹1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 warranting quashment.

Submissions:

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution is built upon an inadmissible confession of a third party, which has no evidentiary value in law. It was contended that even assuming the seizure to be true, there is not a single material to es