Kartar Singh vs State

J.P. Chaturvedi, J.—This is an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings against the applicant Kartar Singh under U.P. Essential. Commodities (Price Display and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1975, Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and rule 114 of Defence of India Rules pending in the Court of the Munsif Magistrate City, Jaunpur.

The facts giving rise to this application are that Phirangi Lai, Supply Inspector, searched the business premises of the applicant on 11th July, 1975 at 4.C0 P.M. The business premises of the applicant is knows as M/s. Ajanta Cycle Stores. He seized 89 tyres and 97 tubes which were not entered in the stock register and he thereby violated the provisions of the aforesaid rule.

The contention on behalf of the applicant is that Phirangi Lal was not an enforcement officer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Price Display and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1975, and he was, therefore, not authorised to seize the goods, arrest the applicant and to launch prosecution against him. In the counter affidavit filed by Ram Shiromani Pandey it is admitted that Phirangi Lal took search of the business premises of the applicant and that the applicant was being prosecuted on his first information report. It is also alleged that Phirangi Lal was empowered by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur under the provisions of Section 2(d) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Price Display and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1975. The counter affidavit, however, does not specify the order of the District Magistrate. It does not give the date of the order and does not give any other particulars of the said order. The allegations in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit in that behalf are vague. The opposite party has also not filed a copy of the said order. In the circumstances I am not prepared to place any reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit and find that there is some substance in the allegations of the applicant. Paragraph 2(d) shows that a Supply Inspector is not an enforcement officer. Ordinarily he can exercise the functions of enforcement officer only if he is so authorised by the District Magistrate. In the present case there is nothing on record to show that he was so authorised, nor is there any thing in the first information report or in the charge-sheet that he was so authorised.

The petition is, therefore, allowed and the proceedings against the applicant Kartar Singh are quashed.