Raju Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16597 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2967/2019

Raju Ram S/o Prahlad Ram, Aged About 25 Years, By Caste Bishnoi, Resident Of 36 Mill, Boyal, Pipar City, District Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Chandra Prakash Pareek S/o Radhey Shyam Pareek, R/o Pipaly Gali, Nearby Arya Samaj, Kotwali Police Station, Nagaur, District Nagaur, The Then/presently Posted As Circle Officer, Circle Bilara, Range Bilara, District Jodhpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Dave For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

08/11/2021

The present misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR

No.230/2018 registered at Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur

for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

owns a Dhaba (Hotel) and an agricultural field behind the same

where he is undertaking agricultural activities. He further submits

that 440 litres of diesel stored in two drums was recovered from

the Dhaba of the petitioner and on account of which the present

FIR was registered. He submits that since the petitioner is running

a Dhaba and is involved in agricultural activities, the diesel stored

was being used only for the purpose of running the DG Sets,

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2967/2019]

tractor etc. He further submits that the diesel was purchased by

the petitioner himself and the bills of the same are also held by

him which clearly shows that the diesel was being used only for

personal purposes.

Learned counsel submits that the controversy involved in the

present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in

the case of Budha Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal

Misc. Petition No. 4279/2018 decided on 03.01.2019).

Learned Public Prosecutor though opposed the petition but is

not in a position to controvert the fact that petitioner owns a

Dhaba and an agricultural field as well as the judgment of this

Court in the case of Budha Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) as

the facts are almost identical in the present case.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the First Information Report as well as the judgment

relied upon by the learned counsel in the case of Budha Ram

(supra).

Admittedly, 440 litres of diesel was recovered from the

premises of the petitioner. The petitioner is having a Dhaba

(Hotel) as well as an agricultural field behind the hotel where he is

undertaking agricultural activities. Considering the fact that there

is no evidence which shows that the petitioner was involved in

selling of the diesel from his premises and the contention that the

diesel which was stored in the premises was being used for

running the DG Sets and tractor, it cannot be said that the same is

in violation of Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. Moreover,

as per the Petroleum Product (Maintenance of Production, Storage

and Supply) Order, 1999, the petroleum products up to 2,500

litres can be sold to one customer at a time and therefore, the

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2967/2019]

recovery of 440 litres of diesel from the petitioner is well within

the permissible limit provided by the provisions of law. Thus, the

petitioner while holding the diesel up to the permissible limit as

provided by the Order of 1999, cannot be held to have committed

an offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

In view of the observations made by this Court in the case of

Budha Ram (supra), the present petition is allowed and the

impugned FIR No.230/2018 registered at Police Station Bilara,

District Jodhpur for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential

Commodities Act is quashed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

3-/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)