Salim vs State of Uttarakhand

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard

By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 07.11.2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Criminal Case No. 4472 of 2009, State v. Salim , relating to offence punishable u/s 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, and u/s 420 IPC. Also, the order dated 21.04.2011, passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision No. 394 of 2009, is also challenged.

Brief facts of the case are that on 10.06.2005, some 19 LPG cylinders were found being carried by two persons in violation of the Petroleum Gas, and Supply and Distribution Order. On the basis of which crime No. 214 of 2005, was registered against the Petitioner, and one other person relating to offences punishable u/s 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, and 420 IPC. After investigation charge sheet appears to have been filed against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate whereby the Magistrate decided to frame charge against the Petitioner. The order was challenged by the Petitioner before the revisional court, and the revisional court also agreed with the trial court.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew attention of this Court to Section 4 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and argued that the procedure of trial of offence punishable u/s 420 IPC, is different to one relating to the offence punishable u/s 3/7 Essential Commodities Act. However, Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Code clearly says that offence under the Special Acts shall also be tried by the procedure prescribed in the Code, which is applicable for trial 2 3 of the cases under IPC, unless the special procedure is prescribed for such offence. Since there is no separate procedure prescribed for trial of offence punishable u/s 3/7 Essential Commodities Act. As such the trial of the offence punishable u/s 3/7 Essential Commodities Act with the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC, suffers from no illegality.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case pending before the trial court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the courts below.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed summarily with the observation that the Petitioner can raise plea of his defence before the trial court. It is further observed that the trial may proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible. (Miscellaneous application No. 8511 of 2011, also stands dismissed).