National Agricultural ... vs State & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4867 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                   Crl.M.C.2020/2008 and Crl.M.A.8852/2009


#        National Agricultural Co-Operative
         Marketing Federation of India Ltd...... Petitioner

!                             Through: Mr.A.K. Thakur with
                                       Mr.Anesh Paul, Advocates
                         Versus

$        State & Ors.                         ..... Respondents

^ Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Addl.P.P.

For the State.

* CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

: V.K. JAIN, J.(ORAL)

1. This is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for quashing FIR No.77/2008 registered at

P.S. Keshav Puram. Petitioner No.1 is National

Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of

India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "NAFED"), and

petitioners No. 2 to 4 are employees of petitioner

No.1. A perusal of the FIR shows that a joint team of

police officials and the officials of Food and Supplies

Department visited the premises/godown of NAFED

situated at A-4-8, Lawrence Road Industrial Area,

Delhi where petitioner No.2, Sushil Kumar Sharma

met them. They carried out physical verification of

foodgrains and pulses lying inside the godown and

found 6721 quintals of foodgrains and pulses in the

warehouse and 3258 quintals of foodgrains and

pulses in the cold storage. Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma

produced the acknowledgment given to concerned

private parties for the goods kept in the cold storage

but no acknowledgment was given for the goods kept

in the wearhouse on the ground that

acknowledgment/receipt book was out of print.

2. The case of the respondent is that the petitioners

contravened Clause 3 and 4 of Order No.F.3(2)/77-

F&S(P&C) dated 22nd September, 1977 issued u/s 3 of

Essential Commodities Act. The relevant clause of

the aforesaid order, inter alia, read as under:-

"3.Display of Prices of Articles:- Unless the price is already displayed on the article itself or its container packet or wrapper or required to be displayed in a particular form and manner under any other law for the time being in force, every dealer shall display the price of every article included in Schedule-I in his shop in any one of the following manners:-

(a) By affixing or tagging a label to each article;

(b) By writing the price in ink on each article;

(c) By putting a placard at the place where one or more of the same articles are kept;

(d) In such other manner as may be specified by the Commissioner from time to time;

Provided that unless otherwise directed by the Commissioner it shall be deemed sufficient for purposes of this clause if one card or placard, as the case may be, is displayed in front of each stock of an article and if an article is stored in the shop, the display of price on all such articles in store need not be made if price on one or more of the same article is displayed in the shop.

Provided further that in case of fresh stock received by a dealer, the price in terms of this clause shall be displayed by him within 48 hours from the time of receipt of the article in his shop or before any article from such fresh stock is offered for sale, whichever is earlier.

4. Display of stocks of Articles:- Unless, where the stocks of any article is required to be displayed in a particular form and manner under any other law for the time being in force, every dealer shall, before commencement of business on any day, display conspicuously on a stock board as near to the entrance of his business premises as possible in legible and bold letters, the stock position of each article included in schedule-II by writing therein the words "available" against each article in stock and the words "not available" against each of those not in stock."

3. The learned Addl.P.P., who is assisted by the IO, SI

S.P. Singh of Police Station Anti Hoarding Cell of

Delhi Police states that the petitioners had

contravened clauses 3 and 4 of the aforesaid order by

not displaying the prices of articles kept in the

warehouse in terms of Clause 3 of the Order and by

not displaying the stock possession in terms of Clause

4 of the Order.

4. A bare perusal of the term „dealer‟ given in clause

2(c) of the aforesaid order would show that it applies

only to a person or a firm which carries on directly or

otherwise the business of selling, supplying or

distributing any article for cash or for deferred

payment or for commission, remuneration or other

valuable consideration „in a shop‟. Article has been

defined in Clause 2 (a) to mean an essential

commodity included in the schedule. There is no

averment anywhere in the charge-sheet or in the FIR

that NAFED was carrying on, directly or indirectly the

business of selling, supplying or distributing any

essential commodity included in the schedule to this

order for cash or for deferred payment or for

consideration.

5. Definition of the expression „shop‟ given in clause 2(g)

of the Order would show that it includes any business

premises where articles are kept for sale but does not

include a godown or a warehouse used separately for

bulk storage. There is no allegation either in the FIR

or in the charge-sheet or any of the documents

annexed to the charge-sheet that the foodgrains etc.

kept in the warehouse of petitioner No.1 were meant

for sale from the premises of NAFED, petitioner No.1.

These foodgrains admittedly belonged to private

parties and were kept in the warehouse of NAFED for

storage purpose. They were meant for sale but not at

the premises of NAFED. They were to be sold from

the premises of the dealers to whom the foodgrains

belonged. It is respondent‟s own case that these

foodgrains had been kept in the warehouse of

petitioner No.1. Therefore, the warehouse of NAFED

where these foodgrains had been stored cannot be

said to be shop within the meaning of the Clause 2(g)

of the aforesaid order.

6. Since neither NAFED, is a „dealer‟ within the meaning

of Clause 2(c) nor the warehouse of NAFED is a shop

as defined in Clause 2(g) of the aforesaid order,

neither Clause 3 nor Clause 4 applies to the

foodgrains which had been stored in the warehouse of

petitioner No.1. It would be appropriate to re-iterate

here that Clause 3 provides for display by "dealer" in

respect of the article kept in the "shop" and since

neither NAFED is a dealer nor its warehouse is a shop

within the meaning of aforesaid order, clause 3 does

not apply. Similarly, Clause 4 applies to a dealer in

respect of the articles which have been kept in the

business premises. As NAFED is not a "dealer"

within the meaning of clause 2(c) nor the warehouse

was a business premises for the purpose of sale of

even foodgrains articles, clause 4 of the order also

does not apply.

7. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs,

even if all the allegations made in the charge-sheet

and the documents annexed to the charge-sheet are

taken as correct, no contravention of the aforesaid

order on the part of any of the petitioners is made

out. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners

cannot be continued and are liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, FIR No.77/2008 registered at P.S.

Keshav Puram against the petitioners and the

proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

(V.K.JAIN) JUDGE NOVEMBER 27, 2009 sk