Bombay High Court
Srivadasan Kunju Nair vs Shashikant Laxman Waghmare And Ors on 30 January, 2024
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2024:BHC-AS:7360-DB
H. C. Shiv 201.w3803.14.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3803 OF 2014
Sivadasan Kunju Nair
aged 57 years, having its registered
office at Cnergy Unit B, 4th Floor,
Appa Saheb Marathe Marg,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025 .. Petitioner
vs.
1. Shashikant Laxman Waghmare
Rationing Inspector, Panvel ..
2. The Senior Inspector of Police,
Panvel Taluka Police Station
Raigad ..
3. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Mr. Subodh Desai i/b Bachubhai
Munim and Co. for the Petitioner.
Mr. J. P. Yagnik APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: A. S. GADKARI AND
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATE : 30th JANUARY, 2024.
JUDGMENT [PER A. S. GADKARI, J.]:
1) The Petitioner-Senior Executive of M/s.Agricore Commodities
Private Limited has prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
H. C. Shiv 201.w3803.14.doc
writ or direction in the nature of mandamus for quashing and setting aside
C.R. No.3021 of 2015 registered with Panvel Taluka Police Station, District
Raigad under Sections 3, 7, 8 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
(for short "said Act") lodged by Respondent No.1 i.e. Supply Inspection
Officer/Rationing Officer, Tahasil Office, Panvel, District Raigad.
2) Heard Mr.Gupte, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr.Yagnik, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. Perused entire record
produced before us.
2.1) Record indicates that, by an Order dated 1 st December, 2014 ad-
interim relief i.e. not to file the charge-sheet in the present case was granted
in favour of the Petitioner and by an Order dated 1 st February, 2019 the
Petition was admitted by confirming the said relief as interim relief.
3) The First Information Report is lodged by the Respondent No.1,
who was working as Supply Inspector Officer/Rationing Officer, Tahasil
Office, Panvel, District Raigad on the date of lodgement of the crime. It is
the prosecution case that, the business of warehouse was being conducted at
M/s.Akshay Warehouse situated at Village Derevali, Taluka Panvel by the
M/s.Care Takers and Company. The said Company used to provide space for
its customers to store their commodities by accepting necessary charges in
that behalf. On 1st July, 2013, the Respondent No.1 along with other
H. C. Shiv 201.w3803.14.doc
Government Officers conducted raid at M/s.Akshay Warehousing and found
that various companies/traders had stored pulses and other edible items in
the said godown. As far as the Petitioner is concerned, it was found that
Petitioner had stored 3359 gunny bags of toor dal (pulses) in the said
warehouse. It was found that the import of said toor dal and storage thereof
by the company namely M/s.Agricore Commodities Pvt. Ltd. was in
contravention of the Government Notification and the Licensing Order
issued by the Competent Authorities under the Essential Commodities Act
from time to time. The said items were seized by the Respondent No.1 and
on 2nd July 2013, present crime is registered.
3.1) As noted earlier, this Court had granted ad-interim relief in
favour of the Petitioner and therefore the police till date have not filed the
charge-sheet against the Petitioner.
4) Perusal of record indicates that subsequently, the Collector of
Raigad issued a Notice dated 15 th July 2013, under Section 6 (A)(2) of the
said Act for confiscation and destruction of the said commodity seized by the
Respondent No.1 and the Petitioner was called upon to submit its
explanation and/or say to the said Notice. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed
its reply dated 23rd September, 2013 to the said show cause dated 15th July
2013. The Collector of Raigad thereafter numbered the said case as Case
H. C. Shiv 201.w3803.14.doc
No.14 of 2013. The Company of the Petitioner i.e. M/s.Agricore
Commodities Pvt. Ltd. had submitted its detailed say to the said show cause
notice and put forth all its contentions pertaining to the import and storage
of said 3359 gunny bags of toor dal.
4.1) The Collector gave hearing to all concerned in compliance with
the principles of natural justice and by its Judgment and Order dated 5 th
February, 2014 passed in Case No.14 of 2013, was pleased to direct that
167.950 metric tonnes of pulses of Petitioner's Company seized by
Respondent No.1 be released from confiscation. The Collector of Raigad in
its Judgment has recorded a finding that, the Licensing Orders issued by the
Government from time to time are not applicable to the Petitioner's
Company. That, the Petitioner has produced necessary and relevant
documents in support of its case and therefore the Licensing Orders are not
applicable to it. The Collector of Raigad exonerated the said company i.e.
M/s. Agricore Commodities Pvt. Ltd. from the allegation of its import and
storage in contravention of the Licensing Order dated 20 th May, 2008 and
other Government circulars.
5) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam
Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2011) 3 Supreme Court
Cases 581 in para 39 has held as under :
H. C. Shiv 201.w3803.14.doc
"39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to
judge as to whether allegation in the adjudication proceeding
as well as proceeding for prosecution is identical and the
exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication
proceeding is on merits. In case it is found on merit that
there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the
adjudication proceeding, the trial of the person concerned
shall be in abuse of the process of the court".
6) Indubitably, in the present case the Competent Authority i.e.
the Collector of Raigad has exonerated the Petitioner from the allegation of
violation of the Licensing Orders or Government circulars while importing or
storing the said alleged 3359 gunny bags of toor dal. The principles
enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam
Kejriwal (supra), according to us are squarely applicable to the case in hand.
As noted earlier, the Competent Authority has exonerated the Petitioner from
the alleged violation of the Licensing Orders, for adjudication of which the
principle of 'preponderance of probability' is applicable. For subjecting the
Petitioner to trial and for securing its conviction undoubtedly the principle
of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' will come into play and therefore the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam
Kejriwal (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case.
H. C. Shiv 201.w3803.14.doc
7) In view of the above, we quash and set aside C.R. No.3021 of
2015 registered with Panvel Taluka Police Station, District Raigad. Petition is
allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).
8) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK,J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
