Telangana High Court
Syed Ahmedulhussaini vs The State Of Telangana on 20 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8291 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.251 of 2019 pending on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nampally, registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'EC Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complaint lodged a complaint stating that he works as Assistant Civil Supply Officer, Circle-III, Charminar, Hyderabad, and on receipt of credible information from the officials of Enforcement Team (1) Hyderabad, regarding the illegal storage of LPG Commercial Cylinders (BPC) at Basti Nabi-E-Kareem Colony, Eidgah, Miralaram Tank, Tadbun, Hyderabad, he along with the Enforcement Staff, proceeded to the place as mentioned above and found 55 empty BPC Commercial Cylinders and 113 full cylinders i.e., total 168 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.8291 OF 2023 cylinders. When two persons by names Abdul Kareem and Syed Khader Mohiuddin Quadri were summoned and questioned about the illegal storage of LPG commercial cylinders (BPC) they failed to give any satisfactory reply and also failed to produce any valid license or permit to carry out the said business and the same proves that the cylinders were stored illegally for their personal gains.
3. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police investigated the matter and on completion of due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner, whereunder, he was arrayed as accused No.3. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri K.Rajashekar, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto complainant.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even if the allegations leveled against the petitioner are taken in its entirety, no offence can be constituted against the petitioner under Section 7 of the EC Act. He contended that the averments 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.8291 OF 2023 of the complaint and the charge sheet, do not indicate any factual construction so as to make out an offence against the petitioner. He asserted that Section 7 of EC Act reads that whoever supplies or sells essential commodities are liable for the said offence but as a matter of fact, it is to be noted that during seizure panchanama, neither the petitioner was present nor was he involved with the firm in any capacity. He lamented that the specific overt act attributed against the petitioner is that he is partner of the firm HBS Services under which accused Nos.1 and 2 were doing business as partners but no such partnership details were furnished and that there is no such firm existing.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner incessantly contended that the name of petitioner got figured in 161 statements on the basis of an alleged confession of the co accused and the same is inadmissible in evidence. Further, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR and the complainant requested action against only two persons i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2 in whose possession the said cylinders were said to have been seized. He averred that petitioner was neither present during raid, nor has participated at the scene of offence and that he is implicated in the case only on the ground of confession of one of 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.8291 OF 2023 the co accused. Therefore, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submitted that though petitioner was not present when the cylinders that were stored illegally were seized, it is to be noted that the accused Nos.1 and 2 in whose presence the raid took place, have specifically confessed about the involvement of petitioner/accused No.3. Therefore, while asserting that the matter requires trial, prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the respondent No.2 who works as Assistant Civil Supply Officer lodged a complaint stating that accused Nos.1 and 2 have illegally stored 55 empty BPC Commercial Cylinders and 113 full cylinders i.e., total 168 cylinders. Further, there is no valid license with them or any permit to carry on with said business.
9. Perusal of charge sheet would reveal that during the course of investigation, the Police recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., whereunder, the LW.1 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.8291 OF 2023 stated that the accused Nos.1 and 2 revealed about their fellow partners in the business and stated their respective shares in the partnership business. On perusing the Section 161 statement of LW.1 it is seen that the share of petitioner/accused No.3 is mentioned as 51% and that the cylinders that were seized were supplied to them by M/s.Medchal Modern Gas, Bharat Gas Distributors, for the purpose of storing them and selling them at a higher price to the needy people.
10. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence against the accused persons, as alleged by the Police. That being so, it is imperative to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.8291 OF 2023 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
11. When the circumstances of this case are to be seen in nutshell, it is noted that as per the averments made in the complaint and the charge sheet, the petitioner/accused No.3 was in hand and glove with accused Nos.1 and 2 who were questioned by the respondent No.2 with regard to illegal storage of cylinders and on such questioning, the role of petitioner was divulged. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no role to play in the business of illegally storing the cylinders, without any valid license or permit.
7
SKS,J Crl.P.No.8291 OF 2023
12. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires full-fledged trial and there are no merits in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioner/accused No.3, before the trial Court, is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required during the course of trial, subject to the condition of petitioner/accused No.3, being represented by his counsel on every date of hearing.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:20.08.2024 PT