Kamal Kishore Gupta and Another vs State of M.P. and Another

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This petition has been preferred u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR of Crime No. 231/2012, whereby crime has been registered against the petitioners u/s 3/ 4 of Essential Commodities Act. The facts giving rise to this petition in brief are that respondent No. 2/complainant has made a complaint against the petitioners alleging that they went to sell Masoor at Mandi, Dabra. They reached at 9.15 AM on 27.3.2012 at Mandi campus and after weighing the Masoor, Ashok Garg and kamal Kishrore have illegally deducted ''Adat'' @ 2.5% on the total sale proceeds and also charged separate amount for weighing. On this complaint the Crime No. 231/2012 u/s 3 / 4 of Essential Commodities Act has been registered against the petitioners.

It is submitted that as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act the FIR can only be registered either by the public servant or any person aggrieved or any recognized consumer and private party has no right to register the FIR under the Essential Commodities Act. It is further submitted that nowhere it is alleged that petitioners have violated any particular order issued under the Essential Commodities Act. The allegations regarding violation of the order petitioners cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act. It is further submitted that Masoor is not an item of Essential Commodities Act, hence no action can be taken against the petitioners. It is prayed that petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/State fairly submits that no violation of any order is alleged in the FIR.

In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, which provides as under.:-

Penalties.- (1) If any person contravenes any order made u/s 3,-

(a) he shall be punishable

(i) in the case of any order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of subsection (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 to the Government;

(c) any package, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the commodity shall, if the court so orders, be forfeited to the Government.

Thus, bare perusal of the Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, it is crystal that when there is a violation of any order regarding any essential commodity, then the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 may apply. The allegations made against the petitioners are that they deducted 2.5% amount of the total sale proceeds of Masoor as Adat and also charged separately for weighing. Thus, prima facie there is no order under the Essential commodities Act, which has been violated by the petitioners. It is pertinent to mention that nowhere in the FIR it is mentioned that any particular order has been made u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, which has been violated by the petitioners making the petitioners liable to be punished u/s 7 of Essential Commodities Act.

This Court in the matter of Hema Bhadoriya Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2008(1) EFR 198, has held that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner regarding inspection of petrol pump without mentioning violation of any order u/s 3 of Essential Commodities Act accused cannot be convicted, therefore, proceedings for the offence punishable u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act have been quashed. Similarly, in the matter of Sonu Jain Vs. State of M.P. in M.Cr.C. No. 3210/2011 decided on 8.12.2011 in which offence has been registered against the petitioner on the ground that at the time of visit of officials of agricultural department shop of fertilizer was closed, it is alleged that there is no violation of any provisions of the fertilizer (control order) and the complainant has only power to cancel license of the petitioner, the proceedings have been quashed. In view of the above analysis and considering that violation of any order u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has not been alleged in the FIR, the FIR is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 231/2012 registered at P.S. Dabra against the petitioners is quashed. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.