Prakash Industries vs State of Haryana

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.

Through this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Messrs Prakash Industries (hereinafter called the `petitioner'') seeks the quashing of criminal Action instituted vide F.I.R. No 12 dated 17th January, 1989 at Police Station Kalka under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act''), besides the release of 150 quintals 88 kilograms and 500 grams of rice, contending that it had purchased 166, 167 and 167 bags full of rice from M/s. Khela Rice & General Mills, Raikot on 5th January, 1988, vide three bills, copies whereof are Annexures P. 1, P. 2 and P. 3. The petitioner then contracted to supply 150 bags of Rice to M/S. Om Oil and Flour Mills, Parwanoo and despatched these bags of rice through Superfast Transport Cooperative Society, Ludhiana on 16th January, 1988, vide invoice, copy whereof is Annexure P4. It was also maintained that release order dated 21st December, 1987, copy Annexure P5, for the sale of 4751 quintals 88 kilograms and 500 grams of superfine raw rice was obtained from the District Food and Supplies Controller, Ludhiana. The aforesaid 150 bags full of rice were being transported through truck bearing registration No. CHW 6286 of the said Transport Society to Parwanoo on 17th January, 1988 when the truck was intercepted by Kalka police and the abovereferred case was registered in spite of the fact that all the necessary documents, including the release order were available with the incharge of the truck. Thereafter, on getting information of the seizure of the truck and the rice. Rattan Lal Accountant of the petitioner approached the police of police station Kalka for the release of the rice etc. but the police did not release the truck or the rice. On the other hand, one Bill Book serial Nos. 201 to 300 of Rice Stock Register and one rice invoice register were taken. Thus, under these circumstances it was contended that no case is made out against the petitioner under any provision of the Act. Therefore, the quashment of the F.I.R. as well as the release of the rice and the above referred registers was sought.

In the return filed by A S.I. Ram Kumar of Police Station Kalka, District Ambala, it was contended that 150 bags of common variety of rice were taken into possession from the above referred truck as the rice was being transported from the State of Haryana to the Himachal Pradesh in Violation of Section 3 of the Haryana Rice Procurement (Levy) JUDGMENT 1985 It was also maintained that the quality of the rice was not mentioned in the bill and that no permit was taken while entering Haryana State at Panchkula barrier in order to prove that the rice was being brought from Raikot to Parwanoo. It was also maintained that ex facie common quality of rice was being exported from Haryana to Parwanoo in Himachal Pradesh, and, therefore, the truck and the rice were seized for committing the violation of the Haryana Paddy (Export Control) JUDGMENT 1987 The seizure of the above referred registers/documents was admitted for the proper investigation of the case.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record. The provisions of Clause 8 of the Haryana Rice procurement (Levy) JUDGMENT 1985, run as under :

"8. Restriction on sale and movement of Rice : (i) No licensed miller or the licensed dealer shall sail or agree to sell or otherwise dispose of the rice recovered by milling or otherwise acquired by him (even other than the levy rice specified in clause 3 or clause 4) as the case may be, except in accordance with a Release Certificate to be issued by the District Food and Supplies Controller.

(2) No licensed miller or licensed dealer shall transport rice from the premises of the rice mill or the godown declared in license except after obtaining and in accordance with the movement chit set out in Schedule VII to be issued by the District Food and Supplies Controller.

(3) The onus of proof to show that the rice is levyfree shall rest upon the person who either owns, possesses or moves through any mode of conveyance, rice in excess of the permissible quantity of less than four quintals".

The provisions of Clause 9 provide procedure for the Release Certificate and run as under :

"9. (1) After delivery of levy rice, every licensed miller or the licensed dealer may make an application in the form set out in Schedule V to the District Food and Supplies Controller or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Government for issue of a Release Certificate for disposal of levyfree rice.

(2) The application; referred to in subclause (1) shall be accompanied with the report, in original issued by the Inspector or the Assistant Food and Supplies Officer concerned in respect of delivery of rice under levy.

(3) On receipt of an application under subclause (1), the District .Food and Supplies Controller shall issue a Release Certificate (i. e. entitlement certificate of levyfree rice) for disposal of the levyfree rice.

(4) An application for Release Certificate shall be made within one month of the date of delivery of levy rice in accordance with clause 3 and clause 4 and the stock of rice in respect of which such Release Certificate is issued shall be disposed of by the licensed miller or the licensed dealer, within the period of validity mentioned on such release certificate.

Provided that the period for making application may be extended by the Director for reasons to be recorded in writing.

(5) The validity period of the Release Certificate so issued shall be, two months which, may be extended by the Director in deserving cases where the validity expired due to the reasons beyond the control of the rice miller/rice dealer.

(6) For movement of levyfree rice every miller/dealer shall be required to obtain Movement Chit in the form set out in Schedule VII which will be issued by the District Food and Supplies Controller on receipt of an application by him".

In the case in hand, the perusal of Annexure P5 reveals that M/s. Khela Rice and General Mills, Raikot were permitted to sell 4651 quintals 88 kilograms and 500 grams of rice of superfine quality free in the market, as it had already delivered 29836 quintals and 24 kilograms of rice of this quality to the Government. It is further mentioned therein that free sale of 25% share has been allowed The perusal of Annexures P1 to P3 reveals that on 15th January, 1988. 167 bags of super fine raw quality of rice was sold to the petitioner by the aforesaid M/S. Khela Rice and General Mills Raikot. From Annexure P4 it appears that the petitioner had consigned bags containing 150 qunitals of rice to the Transport Society and it was loaded in truck bearing registration No. CHW 6286 and was to be delivered to M/s Om Oil and Flour Mills at Parwanoo in Himachal Pradesh. Strange enough in this Bility Annexure P4 the quality of rice is not specifically mentioned. Under these circumstances, the assertion of the Investigator that rice of common quality was being exported, appears to be well founded, especially when there is no other evidence on the file to rebut the same.

For the foregoing reasons it could not be said with certainty that the rice seized by the police of Kalka Police station was of the same quality which was released to be sold in the general market under Release Certificate by the District Food and Supplies Controller. On the other hand, the possibility of loading the rice of common quality from the area of Haryana State cannot be ruled out, especially when no certificate was obtained from Panchkula barrier at the time of entry of this truck into Haryana State. If that is so, then the petitioner had violated the provisions of Clause 8 of the above referred JUDGMENT at least ex facie. However, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent State or of the Investigator that the provisions of Clause 3 of the Haryana Paddy (Export Control) JUDGMENT 1987, had been violated as this order relates to the movement of paddy which has been defined in Clause 2 of the order as rice in husk, whereas admittedly the petitioner was transporting rice only.

Under these circumstances no case is made out for quashing the F.I.R. The petitioner, if so advised, can approach the trial Court for the release of the rice or documents etc. This Criminal Misc. application, is, therefore, dismissed.

Misc. dismissed.