Ved Kumari Mittal and ors. vs State of Punjab and anr.

Surinder Singh, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Shrimati Ved Kumari Mittal and three others, Directors of the Bhatinda Chemical and Vanaspati Mills, Bhatinda, against the Punjab State and another, with a prayer for quashing of the First Information Report No. 344 of 25th July, 1983, registered at Police Kotwali Bhatinda and the proceedings taken in consequence thereof.

The averments in the petition may be briefly noticed. The First Information Report referred to above was lodged by means of a Memo addressed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Bhatinda, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda, for registration of a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against the petitioners. It is recited in the said Report that a Licence was issued to the Firm, of which the petitioners are the Directors, under the Punjab Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licensing JUDGMENT 1977 (hereinafter referred to as `the JUDGMENT) which Licence was renewed up to 31st March, 1985. It is stated that according to Clause 2(b) of the Licence, the Firm was permitted to store edible oil seeds/edible oil in Tank No. 5 situated in the Factory premises of the Firm. On 8th July, 1983, the Government Food Inspector took a sample of the article stored in the Tank for purposes of analysis. The subsequent report of the Public Analyst indicated that `free fatty acids'' in the sample were higher than the prescribed limit. The further allegation is that beef fat, which is inedible oil, was found in the sample. The First Information Report goes on to recite that the Firm did not give information to the District Magistrate within 48 hours of the storage of inedible fat in the Tank No. 5 as required in Clause 2(b) of the Licence and had thus violated the provisions of the JUDGMENTThe petitioners, who are the Directors of the firm, were imputed with criminal liability under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, because they are said to be `incharge'' and `responsible'' for the conduct of the business of the Firm.

It is averred in the present petition that out of the petitioners, Smt. Ved Kumari Mittal is a house wife, while Vinod Mittal is a student of Engineering College at Bangalore, Dwarka Dass Mittal is said to be the Chairman of the Company and Rajinder Mittal is the Managing Director thereof. The contention raised in the petition is that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the basis of the First information Report are wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and mala fide, in the even taking the contents of the First Information Report as correct, the Report does not disclose the commission of any offence at all. It is highlighted that a regular Licence had been issued to the petitioners'' Firm under the 1977 JUDGMENT the relevant Clause of which has been reproduced in the petition. At the time of the bearing of this matter, the learned Assistant AdvocateGeneral also produced a photostat copy of the Edible Oil Licence No. BTIEOSEOW717, issued in favour of the Firm of the petitioners Clause 2(b) of the said Licence runs as follows :

"2(b) Edible oilseed/edible oils in which the aforesaid business is to be carried on shall not be stored at any place other than any of the places/godowns mentioned below :

In factory Premises Tank No. 5.

Note : If the licensee stores his edible oil seeds/edible oils in any place other than those specified above, he shall give information thereof to the District Magistrate within forty eight hours of such storage and shall alongwith such information produce the licence for making necessary entries therein."

The contention raised in the petition is that there is no allegation whatsoever in the First Information Report that the petitioners or their Firm had stored edible oilseeds or edible oils at a place other than Tank No. 5 and hence the question of giving information to the District Magistrate within fortyeight hours did not arise. The other contention is that even if some other article had been stored in Tank No. 5, it would not amount to violation or contravention of the Licence aforesaid. This being so, the question of commission of an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act would not arise. With these contentions, the prayer made in the petition is that the First Information Report in question may be ordered to be quashed and so also the proceedings based upon the same, which are said to be an abuse of the process of the Court.

In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents in the shape of an affidavit of Shri H.S. Chahal, SubDivisional Magistrate, Bhatinda, the averments made in Para No. 1 of the petition, reciting the contents of the First Information Report were admitted. It was reiterated that the petitioners were `incharge and responsible'' for the Firm at the time of the alleged commission of the offence. In regard to the impugned First Information Report the stand taken is that the contents thereof made out an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act `as the Company/Directors contravened the conditions of the Licence issued to them under the Punjab Edible Oils Dealers'' Licensing JUDGMENT 1977". It is further stated that according to the entries in the Edible Oil Stock Register of the Firm there was some stock of Mustard Oil. An airy averment is made that Mustard Oil was stored at a place other than Tank No. 5''. This place is not specified. The stand taken is that no information regarding this storage having been given to the District Magistrate within forty eight hours of the storage, the Firm had contravened the conditions contained in Clause 2(b) of the Licence. It is further stated that the petitioners are being proceeded against for the commission of offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The narration of facts mentioned in the petition and in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, would go a long way to facilitate the consideration of the relief claimed, i.e. whether the present is a fit case where this Court should quash the First Information Report and the proceedings consequent thereto. In so far as the legal position is concerned, it is by now well settled, on the basis of the verdict of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, that a First Information Report which does not allege or disclose, at least prima facie, the commission of a cognizable offence would not warrant any investigation by the Police and the Court would be justified in quashing such a Report or investigation on the basis thereof (State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others and State of West Bengal and others v. Sanchaita Investments and others, AIR 1982 SC 949). The point to be considered, therefore, is as to whether a prima facie case has been made out on the basis of the allegations contained in the First Information Report in the present case. The answer is not far to seek. The foundation of the charge against the petitioners is that they had violated or contravened a condition of the Licence issued to their Firm Irrespective of the consideration as to whether the petitioner can be held personally liable for any such alleged violation, a bare perusal of the relevant condition, i.e. Clause 2(b) reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment, would show that the only prohibition imposed upon the Firm under the said Clause, is that edible oil seeds/edible oils shall not be stored at any place other than in Tank No. 5 of the Factory premises. The First Information Report is completely silent in regard to an allegation that edible oil seeds/edible oils had been stored by the Firm at a place other than Tank No. 5. All that is stated in the First Information Report is that a sample of the articles stored in Tank No. 5 was taken and it was found to be not conforming to the prescribed standards of edible oils. On the basis of this circumstances, the maximum that can be alleged against the petitioners (in fact, the petitioners'' Firm) is that edible oil in which free fatty acids were found to be higher than the prescribed limit had been stored in the Tank. Can this allegation tantamount to saving that Clause 2(b) of the Licence had been contravened? The answer is obviously in the negative, because there is no bar placed in the Licence against storage of any article other than edible oils in the Tank. To enunciate the point, if during a certain period when the Factory is not working, some water is stored in the Tank, temporarily or otherwise, can it be said that the condition contained in Clause 2(b) of the Licence has been violated? Certainly not. In view of these circumstances, the very basis of the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995, is knocked out. It may be observed here that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitions are to be prosecuted for any other offence on the basis of the impugned First Information Report, rather in Para 10 of the reply on behalf of the respondents, it is stated as follows :

"The First Information Report clearly discloses an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and petitioners are being proceeded in accordance with law by Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Special Judge, Bhatinda."

As a result of the above discussion, First Information Report No. 344, dated July 22, 1983 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bhatinda, and the proceedings consequent thereto are quashed, being an abuse of the process of Court.

JUDGMENT accordingly.