Ved Kumari Mittal and Ors. vs State of Punjab

Surinder Singh, J.—The relief claimed in the present petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by Ved Kumari Mittal and others, Directors of Bhatinda Chemical and Vanaspati Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bhatinda, is for the quashing of First Information Report No.345 of the date, as back as July 25, 1983, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bhatinda under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the proceedings taken consequent thereto, which are in progress before the Special Judge, Bhatinda.

It would be relevant to reproduce the impugned First Information Report, as extracted in extenso in the present petition and the correction of which is not disputed at both ends :

"From : The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhatinda.

To

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda.

No. 560/SDM Bhatinda dated 25.7.1983.

Subject : Registration of Criminal Case U/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against Shri Dwarka Dass Mittal Chairman, Sh.Rajinder Mittal Managing Director, Smt. Ved Kumari wife of Sh.Dwarka Dass Mittal and Sri Vinod Mittal Director of M/s Bhatinda Chemical & Vanaspati Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bhatinda. According to statement supplied by the Managing Director of the Bhatinda Chemical & Vanaspati Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bhatinda, it received 498.70 qtls of RBD Palm oil and after refining and manufacturing sold 495.82 quintal. Thus undergoing manufacturing losses to the tune of 2.88 qunital U/s 3(1) of Vegetable Oil Product Producers Regulation of Refined Oil Manufacture) JUDGMENT 1973 no producer shall manufacture for sale any refined imported Palm oil. M/s Bhatinda Chemical & Vanaspati Mills Private Ltd., Bhatinda manufactured for sale RBD Palm oil in contravention of the aforesaid JUDGMENTA criminal case U/s 7 of Essential Commodities Act may kindly be got registered against Shri Dwarka Dass Mittal, Chairman, Sh. Rajinder Mittal, M.D., Smt. Ved Kumar w/o Dwarka Dass Mittal and Shri Vinod Mittal Directors of the Bhatinda Chemical & Vanaspati Mill Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Bhatinda Chemical & Vanaspati Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bhatinda, did not file return of receipt and sale of RBD Palm Oil after manufacturing the same as required under the Punjab Edible Oil Seed and Edible Old Dealers Licensing JUDGMENT 1977. Nonfiling of returns in contravention of Licensing JUDGMENTA Criminal Case U/s 7 E.C. Act may kindly be got registered against Shri Dwarka Dass Mittal Chairman, Shri Rajinder Mittal, M.D., Ved Kumari w/o Dwarka Dass Mittal and Sh. Vinod Mittal Director of M/s. Bhatinda Chemical and Vanaspati Mill Pvt. Ltd. Bhatinda. Sh. Dwarka Dass is Chairman, Rajinder Mittal is Managing Directors, smt. Ved Kumari wife of Dwarka Dass and sh. Vinod Mittal are Director of Bhatinda Chemical & Vanaspati Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bhatinda and were incharge and responsible to it for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence.

Sd/

Sh. Joginder Pal Singh,

Sub Divisional Magistrate,

Bhatinda..........."

Various grounds of attack are raised in respect of the proceedings launched in the consequence of the First Information Report, above noticed. These grounds include objections in regard to jurisdiction of the Court, as also the illegality of the proceedings, apart from the merits of the matter itself. The petition is opposed by the respondentState, on whose behalf written reply along with various documents as Annexures has been filed. At the time of hearing of the matter on December 19, 1985, the parties, through their learned counsel, made an agreed proposal that the petition may be disposed of at the motion stage itself. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have, therefore, been heard at considerable length.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has straightaway come to grips with the merits of the case instead of dealing with the technicalities and legality of the proceedings. It has been contended that the contents of the impugned First Information Report seek to fix liability upon the petitioners on two grounds. Firstly, that the firm of the petitioners had received 498.70 quintals of R.B.D. (Refined Bleached and Deodorised) Palm Oil and after refining and manufacturing the same, sold 495.82 quintals, with a manufacturing loss of 2.88 quintals. This is stated to be a violation of the provisions of Clause 3(1) of the Vegetable Oil Product Producers (Regulation of Refind Oil Manufacture) JUDGMENT 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 JUDGMENT). The second allegations in the First Information Report is that the firm of the petitioners did not file Return regarding receipt and sale of R.B.D. Palm Oil after manufacturing the same, as required under the Punjab Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Dealers Licensing JUDGMENT 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 1977 JUDGMENT). The two violations are alleged to be contravention of the said JUDGMENTs, punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Except for these two allegations, there is no other allegation mentioned in the First Information Report.

Advancing his arguments further, the learned counsel for the petitioner s referred to the charge framed by the Special Judge, Bhatinda, on May 26, 1984, which is to the following effect :

"That on or about 18.6.1983 at Bhatinda, you all were the Directors of M/s. Bhatinda Chemical & Vanaspati Mills, Private Ltd. Bhatinda and refined and manufactured RBD Palm Oil and cause loss to the tune of 2.80 quintals and thereby contravened clause 3(1) of the Vegetable Oil Product Producers (Regulation of Refined Oil Manufacture) JUDGMENT 1973 which is punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and within my cognizance.

Secondly, on the above said date and place you did not furnish returns as required by the due date of receipt and sale of RBD Palm Oil after manufacturing the same and thereby contravened the provisions of Punjab Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licensing JUDGMENT 1977, which is punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges by this Court".

It is submitted that the abovementioned two charges corelate to the two allegations contained in the First Information Report. Dealing with charge No.1, in the first instance, it is argued that the gravamen of the offence under Clause 3(1) of the 1973 JUDGMENT is that no producer is permitted to manufacture for sale any Refined Imported Palm Oil. The emphasis is that the bar in this respect is only against the manufacture of Imported Palm Oil, and in regard to the article referred to in the First Information Report there is no reference to the R.B.D. Palm Oil being of imported origin. In fact such an allegation does not find mention even in the chargesheet, noticed above. On the other hand, all that is alleged is that the First of the petitioners had manufactured Palm Oil and had caused a manufacturing loss of 2.88 quintals. This circumstance cannot form basis of a charge under Clause 3(1) of the 1973 JUDGMENTThe question of any violation of section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on that score would not, thus, arise. As regards the second charge the learned counsel has relied upon a Report produced by the respondent itself as Annexure R/3 to the written reply. This is a Report of the inquiry held by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Bhatinda in the matter at the relevant time. At page 3 of this Report, it is mentioned that raid was conducted at the premises of the firm of June 18, 1983 in order to detect irregularities relating to stocks of some rawmaterials. It is further stated in the same Report that vide order, dated June 18, 1986 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, the working of the petitioner''s Plant was suspended forthwith. In fact, the premises were sealed till a check was made subsequently on June 27, 1983. The Report goes on to mention at page 5 that the petitioner''s firm had been granted a licence under the 1977 JUDGMENT which had been renewed up to March 31, 1983. However, as the firm was said to have contravened certain provisions of that order, its licence was suspended for ninety days, pending further inquiry. These facts mentioned in the Report go to show that no irregularity in respect of the filing of the Returns was alleged up till the date of which the licence stood renewed, i.e. March 31, 1983. It is obvious that after the suspension of the petitioners'' licence for a period of three months and the sealing of the premises, the question of the petitioners filing any Returns of stock etc. could not arise. In this view of the matter the second part of the charge framed against the petitioners is also without any basis.

On behalf of the respondentState, all that is urged is that during the course of the trial, some material might come on the record on the basis of which responsibility can be fixed upon the petitioners in the matter. The nature of that materials, however not indicated. The argument is untenable. The machinery of law cannot be permitted to be set into motion merely to fish for evidence.

From a resume of facts and circumstances noticed above, it is obvious that the impugned First Information Report and the proceedings launched against the petitioners, in consequence thereto, including the charge framed by the Special Judge, are nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. The same are, therefore, quashed.