THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.16086 of 2016

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-

‘‘… to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records pertaining to FIR No.57 of 2016, dated 06.04.2016 of the 2^nd respondent and declare the same is null and void and quash the same and pass such other order or orders …’’

2. Brief facts of the case as well as the contentions advanced through this writ petition by the petitioners are that the petitioners are engaged in the rice business. Respondent No.3 did surprise check of their business premises on 06.04.2016 and subsequently, gave a complaint to respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioners were selling PDS rice illegally by buying the same at cheaper cost from the card holders. Basing on the said complaint, respondent No.2 registered FIR No.57 of 2016 on 06.04.2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420 IPC, Sections 7 and 8 of Essential Commodities Act. The petitioners further submitted that since the Central Government lifted ban on possession, purchase, store, sale and transportation of rice paddy and the State Government also issued GOMs.No.20 in the parallel lines, possession of PDS rice from 30.11.2014 is not a crime. The respondent No.3, in contravention of the same, illegally and highhandedly lodged a complaint with the 2^nd respondent, who registered the FIR No.57 of 2016 of P.S. Bonakal against the petitioners as stated supra. Stating thus the petitioners prayed that the said proceedings against them are illegal and hence, they are liable to be set aside.

3. Heard Ms. C.Sunitha Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that registration of FIR No.57 of 2016 suffers from Infirmities since as on the date of registration of FIR, the Central Government as well as the State Government have lifted ban on possession, sale and transportation of the rice and in such circumstances, the act of respondent No.2 in registration of crime against the petitioners cannot stand for legal scrutiny.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home fairly conceded that there is no dispute regarding the aspects with regard to lifting of ban on rice paddy and also the subsequent orders issued by the State Government from time to time in this regard. However, he vehemently opposed the present writ petition contending that the registration of FIR was much prior to lifting the ban and hence, the act of the petitioners i.e. selling the PDS rice squarely attracts the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the EC Act and accordingly the registration of FIR against the petitioners cannot be found fault with and hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Clause 17(A) of the Control Order, 2008, reads as under:

"17(A) Interruption in the process of Distribution:- "No Fair Price Shop dealer or card holder or any person shall be allowed to cause interruption or interfere with the process of smooth distribution of scheduled commodities under Public Distribution System or other Government schemes at any level right from Food Corporation of lndia godown point to fair price shop point, till the scheduled commodity reaches the intended beneficiary. Any such attempt of interruption or interfering with such process shall be treated as an abetment and be deemed to have contravened this order, thereby committing an offence under Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.”

7. On considering the above provision, it is clear that smooth distribution of scheduled commodities under Public Distribution System should not be interrupted from the godown point to that of the fair price shop and until the commodity reaches the intended beneficiary. In case, if such distribution chain is interrupt