Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shivpratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2022

Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                                     1


       The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                      Bench Gwalior
                      *****************
        SB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

                       MCRC 47376 of 2021
                         Shivpratap Singh
                                 Vs.
                            State of MP
           ==================================
Shri Lalan Mishra, counsel for petitioner.
Shri Dheeraj Budholiya, Panel Lawyer for respondent- State.
                 ==============================
Reserved on                                  26/02/2022
Whether approved for reporting              ..../.......
                ================================
                                ORDER

(Passed on 11/03/2022)

Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J:-

Petitioner has come up with the present petition under Section

482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR vide Crime No.754 of 2020

registered at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior for offences

punishable u/S. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act [ in short '' EC

Act''] and added Sections 353, 186, 34, 420, 467, 120-B of IPC and

other consequential criminal proceedings initiated in connection with

aforesaid Crime.

(2) Facts giving rise to present petition, in brief, are that on

21/12/2020, the District Marketing Officer, namely, Vivek Tiwari

submitted a written complaint at Police Station Morar alleging

therein that at around 01:00 pm, trucks bearing registration

Nos.UP75-AT3899, UP75AT6878 and MP07HB8049 were standing

with loaded paddy under the bridge of Badagaon. The tags were

being fixed by means of staplers by the truck drivers. On enquiry, the

drivers of aforesaid trucks disclosed that paddy was being transported

from Itawa (UP) and purchased the same from M/s. Dhanraj &

Company vide Bilty nos.1076 & 1078 and by M/s. OM Sairam

Transport, the paddy ought to be unloaded at Gwalior, but during the

inspection, the driver of truck bearing registration No.UP75AT6878

driven away along with the documents from the spot. Meanwhile,

one car bearing registration No.MP30C7228 was parked between the

trucks and it is alleged that co-accused Krishnapal Singh Kansana has

snatched the documents from the complainant and torn the same and

thereafter, the same were collected by the Civil Supply Officer and

the Society Manager, namely, Madan Tiwari tried to release the

aforesaid trucks. Statements of one of truck drivers, namely, Somesh

Yadav were recorded. Truck bearing registration No.UP75AT6878

was kept in the custody of Police Station Bijoil for further

proceedings. Thereafter, a written complaint was filed by District

Marketing Officer, Vivek Tiwari and an offence was registered at

Police Station Morar for offence under Section 3/7 of the EC Act

vide Crime No.754 of 2020 against the petitioner and other co-

accused and during the enquiry, Sections 353, 186, 34, 420, 467,

120B of IPC were also added. On the basis of the aforesaid written

complaint, the Collector, Gwalior passed an order on 30/12/2020 for

confiscation of the said truck along with paddy. Being aggrieved, the

petitioner filed an appeal under Section 6(c) of the EC Act before the

Sessions Judge, Gwalior and the same was allowed bySessions Judge

vide order dated 4th February, 2021 passed in CRA No.08/2021 by

setting aside the order of confiscation passed by the Collector.

(3) It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner

is the transporter and owner of said truck. His work is only

transporting the material. He had no knowledge about transportation

of subs-standard paddy. The impugned order of confiscation passed

by the Collector is against the provisions of EC Act. It is further

contended that offence registered against petitioner under Section 3/7

of EC Act has already been excluded from list of essential

commodities in 1992 by the State Government and in absence of

particular violation of Control Order, the impugned FIR registered

against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law. In support of

contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated

17th of January, 2019 passed by Indore Bench of this Court in the

matter of Nitin s/o. Vasudev Udasi vs. State of MP [MCRC 24128

of 2018] in which matter, the prosecution launched by police against

petitioner therein, is not in accordance with law and quashed the FIR

and other subsequent criminal proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted

that present petitioner cannot be held guilty for offence under Section

3/7 of EC Act as from perusal of FIR, it reflects that it is silent about

condition of Control Order, which has been violated by the petitioner;

therefore, prima facie, it does not appear that petitioner has violated

or contravened any order under Section 3/7 of the EC Act. It is

further contended that Clause 11(5) of MPPDS Control Order

provides that the Collector is only authorized to initiate action under

the EC Act if there is any violation of PDS Order or Central Order. In

the present matter, the complainant without obtaining any permission

from the concerning Collector before registering FIR or for seizing

the paddy with truck, on his own instance, clearly amounts to abuse

of process of law. Violation of any Control Order has not been

expressly shown by the police in the FIR and it is not clear which

Control Order has actually been violated by petitioner. Therefore, the

prosecution launched against the petitioner as well as investigation is

illegal and unauthorized. It is further contended that the provisions of

initiation of confiscation proceedings and issuance of show cause

notice before confiscation of essential commodity have been made in

Section 6-A and 6-B of the EC Act but the Collector has not followed

the aforesaid provisions and an order of confiscation has been passed

by which, the same is illegal as per the catena of decisions of Hon'ble

Supreme Court as well as of this Court. It is further submitted that in

similarly situated matter i.e. Krishnapal Singh Kansana Vs. State

of MP & Another passed in MCRC No. 45489 of 2021, this Court

has quashed FIR and other criminal proceedings. Therefore, it is

prayed that the impugned FIR and other consequential criminal

proceedings initiated thereof, against the present petitioner are liable

to be quashed.

(4) Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the

prayer of petitioner and submitted that petitioner is the owner of the

said seized truck and in the said truck, paddy was unauthorizedly

transporting and the driver of the truck in question ran away along

with documents from the spot while an inspection was made by the

complainant and on the basis of statements of one of the drivers of

truck, the complaint has lodged the impugned FIR against the

petitioner and other co-accused persons. Hence, prayed for dismissal

of this petition.

(5) Heard counsel for parties and perused documents available on

record.

(6) Section 7 of the EC Act provides that "the person contravenes

any order made under Section 3" denotes that penalties can be

imposed only when Section 3 of the EC Act is violated. Provision of

Section 7 of EC Act is reproduced as under:-

"Section 7 Penalties (1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3- (a) he shall be punishable

(i) in the case of any order made with reference to clause

(h) or clause (i) of sub-section (2) of that section, with imprisonment 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 of 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."

(7) In the light of provisions of EC Act as well as on perusal of

impugned FIR and other materials collected by police, it is apparent

that in the present matter, complainant has not got any prior

permission from concerning Collector, before registering the FIR or

seizing the truck with paddy. The impugned FIR registered at Police

Station concerned was on the own instance of complainant. The

impugned FIR does not indicate that which Control Order has been

violated by petitioner. Under these circumstances, petitioner cannot

be punished u/S. 3/7 of the EC Act and the prosecution launched by

police against petitioner is not in accordance with law and deserves

to be quashed. From bare perusal of order dated 4th February, 2021

passed in CRA No.08/2021, it is clear that Sessions Judge while