Satnam Singh vs State of Punjab and ors.

Ajit Singh Bains, J.

Vide F.I.R. No. 185 dated 7th September, 1979 a case was registered against Ved Parkash, Ramesh Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Radhey Sham under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act at police station Julkan, 14 prosecution witnesses were examined and five defence witnesses were also examined.

On 30th September, 1983, the Public Prosecutor made an application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning Gurnam Singh Inspector and Pawan Kumar of the Food and Supplies Department, Patiala, as accused persons.

The prosecution allegations are that a raid was organised on 18th August, 1979 at the instance of District Food and Supplies Controller, Patiala and Additional Deputy Commissioner. Patiala on Zimindara Filling Station, Devigarh, and three drums containing about 450 litres of oil were found lying near the filling station which were sealed and entrusted to Gurnam Singh and Pawan Kumar respondents. Two Inspectors examined the witnesses and submitted their report which was later on found to be missing and F.I.R. No. 497 dated 21st September, 1979 under section 379, Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station, Kotwali. Subsequently, at the instance of Satnam Singh son of Fauja Singh, the present petitioner, a case was registered under sections 406/409/109, Indian Penal Code on 15th November, 1980 at Julkan against Gurnam Singh and Pawan Kumar.

On 17th August, 1981, S.H.O. of Julkan obtained warrants of arrest of Pawan Kumar and Gurnam Singh for investigation and submitting supplementary challan but no such challan was presented in the Court It was further alleged in the application by the Public Prosecutor that during trial of the present accused, Hakam Singh, Satnam Singh, Gurbux Singh, Baldev Singh, and Hari Kishan P. Ws had alleged about the involvement of Gurnam Singh and Pawan Kumar in the commission of the offence as they facilitated the proprietor of Zimindara Filling Station to commit the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and that they have abetted the commission of offence. Gurnam Singh Inspector Food and Supplies also appeared as D. W 4 and admitted that he was deputed on Zimindara Filling Station to supervise the distribution of oil. It is also in the evidence that one drum containing 200 litres of oil belonged to Pawan Kumar Inspector. This application of the Public Prosecutor was declined by the learned Magistrate. Satnam Singh the present petitioner also filed an application before the learned Magistrate to the same effect but the same too was declined It is in these circumstances that the present petition under section 482, Cr.P.C, has been filed.

It was canvassed by Mrs. Vanita Kataria that there was enough evidence to connect Gurnam Singh and Pawan Kumar with the commission of the crime. I find merit in this contention. Admittedly, Gurnam Singh Inspector was deputed on the Zimindara Filling Station to supervise the distribution of diesel oil. It has come in evidence of P.W. 14 Baldev Singh Food Inspector that the register pertaining to the distribution of oil was signed by Gurnam Singh. Without his connivance the dealer could not indulge in black market or charge price more than the fixed one. It is in the statement of Hakam Singh PW that one drum of diesel oil containing 200 litres was of Pawan Kumar Sub Inspector. There could not be any direct evidence in such cases. Evidence has to be circumstantial and certain facts are to be inferred Thus I am of the view that prima facie case is made out against Gurnam Singh and Pawan Kumar.

Mr. Nanda learned counsel for Gurnam Singh pointed out that the State has not filed revision against the order of the Magistrate, therefore, this petition is not competent. He relied on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 67. In the aforesaid authority it is observed that the inherent powers under section 482, Cr.P.C. could be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute It is true that the inherent powers are to be used very sparingly in view of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court and can be exercised when there is abuse of the process of the Court. In my opinion, this technicality will not help Gurnam Singh respondent as this petition can be treated as revision petition. It was not filed by an expert but by Satnam Singh petitioner without any legal aid and Mrs. Vanita Kataria, was appointed amicus curiae to assist the Court. Satnam Singh''s application was rejected by the Magistrate and the State did not file any revision or any application under section 482. Cr P. C. against the order of the Magistrate. Otherwise also, I feel that the order of the learned Magistrate in refusing to summon Gurnam Singh and Pawan Kumar amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. In fact the dealer could not have dared to indulge in malpractice without the connivance of Gurnam Singh and Pawan Kumar. Gurnam Singh respondent is holding an important public office. He was Inspector in the Food & Supplies Department and was deptued at the aforesaid Zimindara Filling Station to supervise the distribution of diesel to the farmers.

In the present case there is enough evidence to summon the respondents. If ultimately the Court finds that no case is made out against Gurnam Singh or Pawan Kumar, they can be acquitted but at the time of summoning them the same yard stick is not to be applied which is to be applied at the time when the final decision regarding the guilt is to be taken after the conclusion of the evidence by the Court.

For the reasons recorded, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the Magistrate will summon Gurnam Singh and Pawan Kumar as accused and proceed against them in accordance with law.