Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42770) on 19 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:42770]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6957/2024
1. Mahendra Singh S/o Sh. Jai Singh Sisidia, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Agoriya. Ps Vallabhnagar, Dist. Udaipur.
2. Nepal Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh Chauhan, Aged About
22 Years, R/o Ajitpura, Ps Dungla, Dist. Chittorgarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sh. Badri Lal Rao S/o Sh. Ambalal Rao, At Present
Working as At CO, CO Office Begun, Begun, Dist.
Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Sisodia.
Mr. Harshit Yadav.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
19/10/2024
1. Petitioners seek quashing of an FIR No.24/2024 dated
01.02.2024 registered at Police Station Parsoli, District Chittorgarh
for alleged offences under Sections 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities
Act and Sections 285, 336 & 34 of IPC.
2. According to the FIR in question, upon an information
received on 01.02.2024, the SHO conducted a raid at Shridev
Hotel and 13 drums were recovered. Out of which, 07 drums were
filled with petrol and 06 drums were filled with a chemical. Upon
being asked about the licence, the petitioners stated that there is
no licence.
[2024:RJ-JD:42770] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6957/2024]
2.1 The said drums were seized. The FIR in question for the
aforesaid offences was registered. The petitioners were arrested.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel
for the accused petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor
and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, relies
on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of S.B.
Criminal Revision Petition No.1361/2014 & Ors.; Karamjeet
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 02.02.2016. The
relevant of which is extracted below :
"These orders as well as the State Government's Control
Order of 1990 have all been issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act.
They submit that the Central Government's Control Orders would
have an over-riding effect on a Control order issued by the State
Government as they all cover the same subject. They rely on the
notification dated 10.04.2006 issued by the State Government
under the Control Order, 2005 whereby, officers not below the rank
of Additional DSO have been authorised to take action under the
said Control Order. They further contend that under the Control
Order of 1999, retail sale of petroleum products upto 2500 ltrs. is
permissible to one person at a time."
5. Conceded case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were
found in possession of 1300 litres of petrol and 1020 litres of
chemical (total 2320 litres) and therefore, are liable to be tried
under Section 3 read with 7 of the Essential commodities Act.
However, the competent authority has also issued the notification
dated 10.04.2006, as noted in the judgment supra, permitting
2500 litres of petrol to be transported by an individual. Moreover,
on a court query, it transpires that the chemical recovered is not
covered under the definition of the Essential Commodities Act.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the above
mentioned notification or the ratio rendered in the judgment ibid,
which has attained finality since it was not challenged.
[2024:RJ-JD:42770] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6957/2024]
7. In the premise, the petition is allowed and the FIR in
question is quashed with consequences to follow.
8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
8-Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
