Shiv Kumar Gupta vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another

This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the FIR dated 26.09.2018 in Crime No. 311/2018, registered at Police Station Umaria for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. By way of filing this petition, petitioner is praying for quashing the F.I.R of aforesaid crime number. Initially, the FIR was lodged against the driver of Truck, Amit Kumar Yadav, but at later stage, petitioner is made as an accused and charge sheet was filed against the present petitioner and driver for the aforesaid offence.

According to case, on the basis of written complaint filed by the Suresh Singh Maravi, Assistant Supply Officer, Umaria, police had registered the F.I.R in Crime No. 311/2018 on 26.09.2018. It is contended in the FIR that on 22.09.2018, in the presence of S.D.O Bandhavgarh, officers of Food Department had made an inspection upon Truck bearing registration No. MP-18-GA-3548, parked in the premises of K.K. Wear Housing Corporation, P.G. Godown, Bharaulla. On inspection, 16 gunny sacks of illegal possessed rice were found. Truck driver was failed to produce any valid document in this regard, thus, truck was seized along with rice. Further, it was found that the violation of conditions of Public Distribution System 2015 (wrongly typed as "1915") was made by the petitioner, hence, same is punishable under Section 3/7 of the E.C. Act, 1955. It is necessary to be noted that from perusal of case diary and other documents, it seems that the prosecution has wrongly mentioned the year of PDS (Control) Order and typed as 1915 in place of 2015. In this regard District Supply Officer Umaria had also written a letter vide memo No. 1505/Khadya/2018, dated 27.10.2018 to Incharge Police Station, Umaria for correcting the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner has filed the detailed reply of notice, contending that the police does not have any jurisdiction for prosecution, thus, FIR may be quashed. Further, police is also failed to seek any sanction from District Magistrate for prosecuting the petitioner, thus, it is clear violation of conditions provided under Control Order. Apart from that petitioner has no criminal past and he has submitted the complaint of S.P and other higher police authority, thus, the said FIR was registered against him after thought with the mala fide intention. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing this petition. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgement of this High Court passed in the case of Jodhsingh & another Vs. State of MP and another reported in 2016 (I) MPJR SN 23.

On the other hand, learned panel lawyer for state submits that there is sufficient material is available on record to constitute the aforesaid offence against the petitioner. The petitioner is owner of Truck and he has breached the condition No.13 of M.P Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2015. He has illegally occupied the rice of PDS Scheme in his truck, thus, sufficient material is available. At this stage, when the charge sheet has already been filed, FIR may not be quashed. With the aforesaid prayer he prays for dismissal of this petition.

Heard both the parties and perused the case diary.

On perusal of case diary, it appears that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he is the owner of truck bearing registration No. MP-18-GA-3548, which was found in the illegal act of keeping 16 gunny sacks of rice of P.D.S. Scheme. While inspection, the aforesaid truck was parked in the premises of K.K. Wear Housing Corporation, P.G. Godown, Bharaulla and the driver was there and he was failed to produce any valid document in this regard. As earlier pointed out, the prosecution has filed the charge sheet by mentioning wrong year of the Control Order, but Collector has written a letter to correct the same to Incharge Police Station Umaria, thus, without entering into the technicality of the matter, this Court shall consider the condition enumerated under Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2015. Further, it is true in the FIR, the prosecution has failed to mention the specific condition, alleged to breach by the petitioner, but from careful observation of case diary, it is found that the Collector District Umaria has given show cause notice to the petitioner and driver of alleged truck. In the said notice, condition alleged to breach by the petitioner is specifically mentioned by the Collector and according to it the petitioner and driver have violated the condition 13 of aforesaid Order, 2015.

Before embarking on the facts of the case, it would appropriate to read first the condition, violated by the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution. Condition 13 of Order 2015 is quoted as under:-

प्रतिस्थापन/व्यपवर्तन/अपमि़श्रण का रोका जाना -

प्रतिस्थापन/व्यपवर्तन/अपमिश्रण को रोके जाने के उद्देष्य से, आवंटिती संस्था को ऐसे भौतिक अथवा इलेक्ट्रानिक उपकरणों की स्थापना एवं उनका नियमित संधारण करना होगा , जैसा कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा समय समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट किया जाए ।

कोई भी व्यक्ति लक्ष्यित सार्वजनिक वितरण प्रणाली के अधीन वितरण होने वाले खाधान्न एवं अन्य आवष्यक सामग्री के परिवहन, भण्डारण या वितरण के दौरान प्रतिस्थापन /व्यपवर्तन/अपमिश्रण नहीं करेगा ।

Petitioner argued before this Court that in the documents of prosecution there is some ambiguity is found regarding form of seized grain, whether the same was rice full grain or rice broken ? In this regard there is one analysis report of M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Umaria is also annexed with and according to it the quantity of full grain rice is 27.5% whereas the broken rice is 72.5%. Petitioner has also submitted a photo copy of bill of Shiv Rice Mill (Firm of the petitioner), in which it is mentioned that 16 gunny sacks broken rice (Kanki, Pashu Ahar) was sold to one Rajesh Kumar Rungta. In the said bill, signature of driver is also found. From perusal of Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, it appears that the condition No. 13 of said Order is restricted any person to make transportation, storage and distribution of the Essential Commodity and food under the Public Distribution System. Further, condition No.16 provides the punishment for making such type of violation. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying the bill of his firm Shiv Rice Mill and argued that there is no evidence in the case which shows that the aforesaid grain belongs to State Civil Supply Corporation, whereas same was related to his firm and was sold to one Rajesh Kumar Rungta. In this regard, in the statement of Suresh Singh Maravi, Assistant Supply Officer, it is specifically mentioned that in the 16 gunny sacks name SCSC Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supply KM'S 2017-18 was reflected.

Therefore, from the above said discussion it appears that there is sufficient prima facia material is available to constitute the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act 1955. It is true there is some ambiguity is found in part of prosecution for mentioning the correct name of control Order, but in show cause notice issued to the petitioner, correct provision was mentioned by the Collector. It is also found that the Collector has written a letter to Incharge Police Station, Umaria for mentioning the correct provision in their proceeding. So far as material which is produced by the petitioner in his defence is concerned, same can not be considered at this stage. There is need of trial to prove the referred documents.

The judgment passed in the case of Jodhsingh (Supra) relied by the petitioner's counsel is different set of facts as in the case prosecution has failed to clearly stated that how and which condition of the control order was violated by the petitioner of the case, wherein in the present case the provision is mentioned by the prosecution, thus same is not applicable in this case.

Accordingly, at this stage, there is no sufficient cause is available to quash the FIR and entire proceedings of trial Court. Thus, petition is devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed. However, Petitioner shall be a liberty to argue before the trial Court while framing of charges if already not framed by the trial Court.