[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amrit Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:643
1 MCRC-750-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 7 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 750 of 2015
AMRIT SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate alongwith Ms. Deepti Manjhi
- Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of the First Information
Report registered at Crime No. 236/2014 for the offence punishable under
Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as well as quashment
of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the proceedings
pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
District Bhind, in Case No. 515/2014 titled State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Amritlal.
Brief facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution, are that the
petitioner was alleged to have illegally stored kerosene at his residence for
the purpose of black-marketing. It is alleged that on receiving information
from an informer, the police of Police Station Gormi, along with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:643
2 MCRC-750-2015
Tehsildar and other revenue officials, conducted a search at the house of the
petitioner. During the search, one drum containing approximately half
quantity of kerosene and one white plastic can of five litres capacity were
allegedly found at the premises. On being asked to produce a valid licence
for storage and sale of kerosene, none was produced. Consequently, the said
kerosene was seized in the presence of Panch witnesses and its value was
assessed at approximately ₹20,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid
allegations, an offence under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act,
1955 was registered against the petitioner and the trial is pending before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has
preferred the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the
respondents is contrary to law and deserves to be quashed in exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC. It is contended that a bare
perusal of the FIR reveals that the prosecution has failed to mention any
specific Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955, which is alleged to have been violated. In the absence of
reference to a particular Control Order, no offence under Sections 3/7 of the
Act is made out. It is submitted that contravention of a specific order issued
under Section 3 is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 7
of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in K.S. Subhiya vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1979
SC 711, wherein it has been held that the safeguards provided under the Act
are intended to protect the liberty of citizens and to prevent frivolous or ill-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:643
3 MCRC-750-2015
founded prosecutions, and that initiation of prosecution without compliance
of statutory requirements vitiates the proceedings.
It is further submitted that in Sushila Choudhary vs. State of U.P.,
reported in 1987 EFR 336, it has been held that where the allegations in the
FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence, the
High Court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the
process of law. It is also submitted that this Court, in Hema Bhadouriya vs.
State of M.P., reported in 2008 (1) EFR 198, and in Narottam Singh Tomer
vs. State of M.P. passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3882 of 2008, has categorically held
that in the absence of mention of the violated Control Order, prosecution
under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is unsustainable.
Learned counsel further contended that admittedly no kerosene was
seized from the personal possession of the petitioner and he has been
implicated merely on the assumption that he was the owner of the premises.
Such presumption, in absence of any documentary evidence establishing
illegal storage or sale of kerosene by the petitioner, is impermissible in law.
It is further argued that Respondent No. 2 had no authority to conduct
inspection or register the FIR, as the power of inspection and seizure under
the Essential Commodities Act vests with specified authorities under
respective Control Orders. No Food Officer was associated and no intimation
was given to the competent authority, rendering the entire proceedings
without jurisdiction.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and
submitted that the FIR was registered on the basis of credible information
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:643
4 MCRC-750-2015
and a lawful inspection conducted in the presence of revenue authorities. It is
argued that kerosene meant for public distribution was found stored without
licence and seized in presence of independent witnesses, disclosing a prima
facie offence. It is further contended that the inherent powers under Section
482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly and disputed questions of fact should
be left to be decided during trial.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
material available on record, this Court finds that the FIR does not disclose
violation of any specific Control Order issued under Section 3 of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and it is well settled that contravention of a
particular order issued under Section 3 is a sine qua non for attracting the
penal provisions of Section 7 of the Act. In absence of such allegation, the
basic ingredients of the offence are not made out.
This Court, in Hema Bhadouriya vs. State of M.P. ( supra), has
categorically held that without mentioning the violated Control Order, an
accused cannot be prosecuted under Sections 3/7 of the Essential
Commodities Act. A similar view has been reiterated in Banti Gupta vs. State
of M.P., reported in 2016 Cri.L.J. 1384.
Further, in Narottam Singh Tomer vs. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No.
3882 of 2008), this Court, relying upon the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335, held that where no contravention of any order issued
under Section 3 is disclosed, prosecution under Section 7 of the Act is liable
to be quashed. Relevant extract of the aforesaid order reads as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:643
5 MCRC-750-2015
7. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned
counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the
provisions of Essential Commodities Act, which provides as
under. :-
"7. Penalties. (1) If any person contravenes any order
made under Section3,-
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:643
6 MCRC-750-2015
court so orders, be forfeited to the Government.
8. Thus, bare perusal of the Section 7(1) of the
Essential Commodities Act, makes it crystal clear that when
there is a violation of any "order" regarding any essential
commodity, then the provisions of Essential Commodities
Act, 1955 may apply.
9. This Court in the matter of Hema Bhadoriya Vs.
State of M.P., reported in 2008(1) EFR 198, has held that the
criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner regarding
inspection of petrol pump without mentioning violation of
any order under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act
accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable
under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Harayana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in
1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 laid down the principal of law
enunciated in series of decisions relating to exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and formulated
the guidelines observing as under:-
"This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of
various relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-
ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:643
7 MCRC-750-2015
or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C gave the
following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein
such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formula and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised-
(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 pnma 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:643
8 MCRC-750-2015
(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
specified provisions 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 malafide 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."
11. As noticed here in above it is not prima facie found
that petitioner has violated any "Order" under section 3 the of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:643
9 MCRC-750-2015
Essential Commodities Act 1955 therefore he can not be
punished under section 7 of the of Essential Commodities
Act 1955. The present case is covered under the guidelines
no.-1 of Bhajanlal's case(supra). Therefore, the petition
deserves to be allowed.
12. Consequently the petition is allowed. The criminal
complaint pending before J.M.F.C. Ambah District Morena
in case no. 269/08 and also F.I.R. registered at Crime No.
23/08 for the offence punishable under section 3/7 of
Essential Commodities Act 1955 is hereby quashed.""
In the present case, even if the allegations made in the FIR are
accepted in their entirety, no prima facie offence under Sections 3/7 of the
Essential Commodities Act is made out against the petitioner. Continuation
of the criminal proceedings would result in unnecessary harassment and
would amount to abuse of the process of law. The case clearly falls within
the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal's case warranting exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice.
Accordingly, following the settled legal position as laid down in Hema
Bhadouriya (supra), Banti Gupta (supra), and Narottam Singh Tomer ( supra),
this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be
allowed.
Consequently, the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is allowed. The FIR registered at Crime No. 236/2014
for the offence punishable under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:643
10 MCRC-750-2015
Act, 1955, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the
criminal case pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, District Bhind, in Case No. 515/2014 titled State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Amritlal, are hereby quashed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
