Order on Board

19-3-2024

1. The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 1353/2023 registered at Police Station Supela, Distt. Durg (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20-12-2023, on being received secret information that at Singh Traders, which is a shop of applicant situated at Nehru Bhawan Road, Supela, fortified rice, which is used in Public Distribution System, is being purchased. On aforesaid information, Assistant Food Inspector T.S. Khatri made a raid at aforesaid shop, wherein 8.40 quintal fortified rice was found, which is against the Order issued under Section 3 of Act and punishable under Section 7 of the EC Act. Hence, present FIR was lodged by complainant T.S. Khatri, Asstt.

Food Inspector against applicant and his salesman. As per prosecution case, aforesaid fortified rice was seized from applicant and subsequently handed over to him on Supurdnama.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant runs aforesaid shop and used to sell grains after purchasing it. On 15-12-2023, he had purchased 1006 kg rice from Shri Shyam Udyog, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai. On the date of raid, he kept 8.40 quintal rice in his shop which he purchased from Shri Shyam Udyog and receipt has also been filed as Annexure A-2 before this Court. It is further submitted that co-accused Harish Sahu, who is salesman of applicant, from whose possession, rice has been seized, has been granted bail by the concerned Additional Sessions Judge, hence, the applicant may also be granted anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that on 20-12-2023, a raid was conducted in the shop of present applicant situated at Supela, Bhilai, to which, he was found in illegal possession of 8.40 quintal fortified rice, which is rice of Public Distribution System (Fair Price Shop), therefore, aforesaid rice was seized from the shop of applicant namely Singh Traders. At the time of raid, applicant was not present but his salesman was present. It is further submitted that since the offence is punishable under the Act, which is bailable offence, therefore, this petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

5. Learned State counsel could not apprise the Court about law, circular/Ordinance etc. to substantiate his contention that offence under the provisions of Act is bailable.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused various provisions of the Act.

7. Section 10-A of the Act was inserted by the Amendment Act No. 36 of 1967 with effect from 30-12-1967 which provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be bailable. By another Amendment Act 30 of 1974, the words "and bailable" were deleted from Section 10A of the Act. As an effect of deletion of the aforesaid words from Section 10A, there remained no specific provision in the Act on the point whether the offence punishable under the Act is bailable or non-bailable. By the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act 1981, Section 10A of the original Act, 1955, was amended and after the word "cognizable" the words "and non- bailable" were introduced. The said Act of 1981 was to remain in force for a period of 5 years only from the date of its commencement. Thereafter by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions Continuance) Act 1987, para 2, the preamble of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act 1981 was amended and the period of 5 years was substituted by the period of 10 years. Thereafter by way of 3rd Amendment the said period of continuance was made for 15 years. After expiry of 15 years, no amendment Act was brought into force, however, certain ordinances were i