Bombay High Court
Dhanraj S/O Anandrao Mohod And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 16 March, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
65-Cri.APL-728-15 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.728 OF 2015
1. Dhanraj s/o Anandrao Mohod
Aged about 86 years, Occ. Business,
2. Hemraj s/o Dhanraj Mohod
Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business,
Both R/o Taroda, Tahsil Karanja,
Dist. Wardha. ... Applicants.
-vs-
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O.
P. S. Karanja, Dist. Wardha.
2. Tahsildar, Karanja, Dist. Wardha. ... Respondents.
Shri R. M. Daga, Advocate for applicants.
Shri J. Y. Gurde, APP for State.
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &
A.S.CHANDURKAR JJ.
DATE : MARCH 16, 2016
Oral Judgment : (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J.)
Admit. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the
parties.
By the present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1972, the applicants seek quashing of the First
Information Report registered against them under the provisions of Sections
65-Cri.APL-728-15 2/4
3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the said Act).
2. Shri R. M. Daga, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that in the First Information Report there is no reference whatsoever made to
breach of any order that has been made under Section 3 of the said Act. It is
submitted that unless there is breach of any order that has been made under
Section 3 of the said Act, there would be no question of any violation of such
order to result in an offence being committed under Section 7 of the said Act.
He submits that a specific ground has been raised by him in the present
application that as no order has been made under Section 3 of the said Act,
there was no question of its violation. The learned counsel has placed
reliance on the judgment of Division Bench in Rakesh s/o Mahendrakumar
Jain vs. The State of Maharashtra 2014 ALLMR (Cri) 3144. It is therefore
submitted that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse
of the process of law.
3. Shri J. Y. Gurde, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
non-applicants on the other hand submitted that as a prima facie case had
been made out against the petitioner, the offence under Section 3 of the said
Act read with Section 7 thereof has been registered. He further submitted
that statements of various ration card holders had also been recorded which
reveal that the applicants had not been distributing food grains in accordance
65-Cri.APL-728-15 3/4
with law. He therefore submitted that there was no case made out to quash
the proceedings.
4. Perusal of the First Information Report indicates that on the basis
of a complaint received, the investigation was carried on 05/05/2015 by the
Supply Officer. The stock which was available was seized and the samples
were thereafter forwarded to the Competent Authority. It is then stated that
after inspection of the register, it was noticed that the entries made therein
did not reveal the correct state of affairs. It is on that basis that the offence
under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the said Act came to be registered.
In Rakesh M. Jain (supra) the Division Bench of this Court while
considering the provisions of Section 3 read with Section 7 of the said Act
has held that unless there is any order made under Section 3 of the said Act
that was alleged to have been contravened, there was no question of any
offence under Section 7 of the said Act being made out. While holding so,
the Division Bench to which one of us (B. R. Gavai, J.) was a party relied
upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Prakash Babu
Raghuvanshi vs. State of M.P. (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 490. It was
held therein that for bringing an application under Section 7 of the said Act,
the essential requirement was the violation of an order made under Section 3
of the said Act. As the prosecution sought to rely upon a Scheme framed by
the State Government which according to it was an order made under
65-Cri.APL-728-15 4/4
Section 3 of the said Act and as such plea was not canvassed either before
the trial Court or the High Court, the proceedings were remitted to the High
Court.
5. The present case stands on a better footing inasmuch as there is
no reference whatsoever in the First Information Report to any order having
been made under Section 3 of the said Act being violated. The specific
averments made by the applicants in paragraph 4 of the application have not
been specifically controverted. In that view of the matter, in absence of it
being shown that there was any order made under Section 3 of the said Act
that had been contravened, the proceedings for an offence punishable under
Section 7 of the said Act would not be tenable. The continuation of these
proceedings therefore would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In
view of aforesaid, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)
thereof with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Asmita
