Shrikant Prabhakar Shingru And ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Samudrapur, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5681 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shrikant Prabhakar Shingru And ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Samudrapur, ... on 16 September, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:9260-DB


                       J- APL 1324-2023.odt                                                                 1/11




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO.1324/2023

                       1.      Shrikant Prabhakar Shingru,
                               Aged about 46 yeas,
                               Occupation : Business,
                               R/o. Dhyaneshwar Ward,
                               Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat,
                               District - Wardha

                       2.      Ankit Dharmendra Karhade,
                               Aged about 28 years,
                               Occupation : Business,
                               R/o. Wagdara, Post Mandar,
                               Tah. Wani, Dirstrict-Yavatmal
                                                                                              ... APPLICANTS
                                                 ...VERSUS...

                       1.      State of Maharashtra
                               Through Police Station Officer,
                               Police Station Samudrapur,
                               Tah. Samudrapur, Distt. Wardha

                       2.      Premraj Rambhau Awachat,
                               Aged about 50 years,
                               Occu. Service as Police Sub
                               Inspector, C/o. Office of Sub
                               Divisional Police Officer,
                               Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat,
                               District- Wardha
                                                                                        ...NON-APPLICANTS
                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Shri. A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for applicants
                       Shri. N.H. Joshi, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 J- APL 1324-2023.odt                                            2/11




        CORAM :          URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
                         NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
        DATED          : 16.09.2025


ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned

Counsel for the parties.

2. Present application is preferred by the applicants for quashing

of First Information Report No.0464/2023, dated 17.07.2023,

registered with Samudrapur Police Station, Nagpur, for the offences

punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities

Act, 1955, as also the consequent charge-sheet bearing No.1/2024

registered as Regular Criminal Case No.12/2024).

3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the

application are as under:

On 17.07.2023 non-applicant No.2 who is serving as a PSI,

Premraj Rambhau Awachat, received a secret information that in

the godown situated in the agricultural a field of Kolhi Shivar

belonging to Wamanrao Bhaimare, the vehicle Truck was carrying

paddy of rice which is used in the ration shop. On the basis of the

said information, as per the direction of the Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, in presence of panchas the raiding party approached the

spot and apprehended the said truck and on search of the said truck

they found 146 gunny bags of 50 kgs. each total weight 7300 kgs of

rice found loaded in the truck. Upon inquiry the said two persons

failed to submit any information or documents as to from where

they have brought the said commodities. Accordingly, the seizure

panchanama came to be lodged and First Information Report came

to be lodged. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has

recorded the statements of the witnesses. The truck bearing No.

MH-34/BG-1345 also came to be seized. The documents pertaining

to the registration number of the vehicle are also seized and after

completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet is filed against the

present applicants.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants who submitted that

the first ingredient that the seized rice i.e. paddy was reserved for

distribution itself is not established from the investigation by the

prosecution. He invited our attention towards the communication

by the Inspection Officer of the Food Safety Department, deputed at

Samudrapur to the Tahsildar, who has specifically stated that the

stock seized is not similar to which is always reserved for the

distribution. He submitted that this communication itself shows that

the seized stock is not reserved for the distribution and, therefore,

there is no violation as far as Section 3 is concerned and Section 7

based with the punishment on the violation of Section 3. In view of

that he prays for quashing of the First Information Report against

the applicants.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the

said and submitted that huge stock was seized at the instance of the

secret information. Present applicants were found in possession of

the said stock which they were about to transport and therefore the

prima facie case is made out, against the present applicants. They

also failed to produce the document as to the license. In view of

that the application deserves to be rejected.

6. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire

investigation papers as well as the recitals of the First Information

Report the nature of the allegation is that the present applicants

were intending to transport the stock which was reserved for the

distribution or supply as an essential commodity. In view of Section

3, the powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of

essential commodities and it deals with the contingency that :

"(1) If the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, [or for securing any essential commodity for the defence of India or the efficient conduct of military operations], it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein."

Sub Section (2) of Section 3 speaks that :

"(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub section (1), an order made thereunder may provide,-

(a) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the production of manufacture of any essential commodity;

(b) for bringing under cultivation any waste or arable land, whether appurtenant to a building or not, for the growing thereon of food-crops generally or of specified food-crops, and for otherwise maintaining or increasing the cultivation of food-crops generally, or of specified food-crops;

(c) for controlling the price at which essential commodity may be bought or sold;

(d) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of, any essential commodity;

(e) for prohibiting the withholding from sale of any essential commodity ordinarily kept for sale;

(f) for requiring any person holding in stock, or engaged

in the production, or in the business of buying or selling, of any essential commodity,-

(a) to sell the whole or a specified part of the quantity held in stock or produced or received by him, or

(b) in the case of any such commodity which is likely to be produced or received by him, to sell the whole or a specified part of such commodity when produced or received by him, to the Central Government or a State Government or to an officer or agent of such Government or to a Corporation owned or controlled by such Government or to such other person or class of persons and is such circumstances as may be specified in the order.

Explanation 1. -An onder made under this clause in relation to foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, may, having regard to the estimated production, in the concerned area, of such foodgrains, edible oilseeds and edible oils, fix the quantity to be sold by the producers in such ares and may also fix, or provide for the fixation of, such quantity on a graded basis, having regard to the aggregate of the area held by, or under the cultivation of, the producers.

Explanation 2. --For the purposes of this claune, "production" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions includes manufacture of edible oils and sugar;

(g) for regulating or prohibiting any class of commercial or financial transactions relating to foodstuffs which, in the opinion of the authority making the order, are, or, if unregulated, are likely to be detrimental to the public interest;

(h) for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulating or prohibiting any of the aforesaid matters;

(i) for requiring persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of or trade and commerce in, any essential commodity to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating

thereto, as may be specified in the order;

(ii) for the grant or issue of licences, permits or other documents, the charging of fees therefor, the deposit of such sum, if any, as may be specified in the order as security for the due performance of the conditions of any such licence, permit or other document, the forfeiture of the sum so deposited or any part thereof for contravention of any such conditions, and the adjudication of such forfeiture by such authority as may be specified in the order;]

(j) for any incidental and supplementary matters, including, in particular, the entry, search or examination of premises, aircraft, vessels, vehicles or other conveyances and animals, and the seizure by a person authorised to make such entry, search or examination,-

(i) of any articles in respect of which such person has reason to believe that a contravention of the order has been, is being, or is about to be, committed and any packages, coverings or receptacles in which such articles are found;

(ii) of any aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or animal used in carrying such articles, if such person has reason to believe that such aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or animal is liable to be forfeited under the provisions of this Act;

(iii) of any books of accounts and documents which in the opinion of such person, may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act and the person from whose custody such books of accounts or documents are seized shall be entitled to make copies thereof or to take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer having the custody of such books of accounts or documents."

Section 7 is a penal provision for the contravention of Section

3 and 6-A and penalties are provided thereunder. It speaks that :

"(1) If any person contravenes any order made under

section 3,-

(a) he shall be punishable,-

(1) in the case of an order made with reference to clause

(h) or clause (i)of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and

(ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:

[Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than three months;]

(b) any property in respect of which the order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Government;

(c) any package, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the commodity shall, if the Court so orders, be forfeited to the Government. (2) If any person to whom a direction is given under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 3 fails to comply with the direction, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:

[Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than three months.]"

7. Thus, the Act envisages two independent proceedings for

contravention or violation of an Order made under Section 3; under

Section. 6-A, the Collector can confiscate the seized commodity

Under Section 7, there can be conviction and punishment for the

offence. Under Section 7, as it then stood, the Court had the

discretion to direct or not to direct forfeiture of the whole or a part

of the commodity seized but by amendment of 1974 that discretion

has been taken away and the Court is bound to forfeit the property.

8. The supply and distribution is the essential ingredient and it

has to be shown by the prosecution that the stock which was seized

during the raid was for the supply and distribution as an essential

commodity. As far as this ingredient is concerned, which itself is

absent if the investigation papers are perused. On the contrary, the

communication to the Tahsildar by the Inspection Officer shows

that the seized stock is not similar to the stock which is reserved as

a Government stock for the distribution or supply. Thus the essential

ingredient that the stock which was seized was reserved for the

distribution or supply itself is not established from the investigation

papers. Therefore, no prima facie case is made out as far as present

applicants are concerned. In view of that the application deserves to

be allowed.

9. Before allowing the application, it is necessary to go through

the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of

Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992

Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure and Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

which laid down the guidelines wherein such powers should be

exercised. They are as follows:-

"(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-

cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or

where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

10. In light of the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, the applicants have made out a case for quashing of the First

Information Report. Hence, we proceed to pass following order :

ORDER

i) The application is allowed.

ii) The First Information Report bearing No.0464/2023, dated

17.07.2023 registered with Samudrapur Police Station, Nagpur, for

the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955, as also the consequent charge-sheet

bearing No.1/2024 registered as Regular Criminal Case

No.12/2024, are hereby quashed.

11. The application is disposed of in the above said terms.

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

Jayashree..