Telangana High Court
Soma Shiva Kumar, vs The State Of Telangana on 5 July, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 6666 AND 7205 OF 2020,
710, 820, 900, 1023, 1110, 1124, 2264, 2298, 2362, 2967, 2984,
3054 AND 3060 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings in the Calendar Cases specifically mentioned therein. The
petitioners are accused in the said Calendar Cases. The offences
alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406, 409 and 420
IPC, Sections 6(A), 7 and 7(A) of the Essential Commodities Act,1955
(for short, 'the EC Act') and clause 17(d) (e) of T.S.Public Distribution
System (Control) Order, 2016 ( for short, the TSPDS(C) Order, 2016).
Particulars of the said Calander Cases impugned herein are detailed
below:-
Sl. Crl.P. Calendar Case Number Accused Offences Nature of
No. No. Number allegedly offence
committed
01. 6666/20 603/19 of AJMFC, A3 420 IPC, Transportat
Gajwel (116/19 of Secs.6(A) ion of PDS
Gajwel PS) and 7 of EC rice.
Act
02. 7205/20 467/20 of JMFC, sole 420 and 7 Stocking of
Jangaon (Cr.100/20 of accused (A) of EC Act P.D.S. rice
Raghunathpally, in a house.
Jangaon)
03. 710/21 767/20 on JMFC, sole 420 IPC & 7 Stocking of
Gajwel (Cr.76/20 of accused of EC Act PDS rice in
Raipole Police Station, rice mill.
Siddipet)
04. 820/21 2363/20 on AJMFC, A5 420, 7(A) of Selling PDS
Suryapet (Cr. 282/20 ECA & 17 dice
of Suryapet Rural P.S. (d), (e) of TS (rukalu) at
Public higher
Distribution price.
System
(Control)
Order, 2016
05. 900/21 819/20 of AJMFC, Sole 420 IPC & Stocking of
Kalwakurthy (77/19 of accused 7(A) of EC PDS rice
Veldanda PS, Act
Nagarkurnool
06. 1023/21 152/18 of JMFC, A1 and 406, 409 Stocking
Gajwel (38/17 of A.2 IPC & 7 of PDS rice in
Raipole P.S., Siddipet) EC Act a mill.
07. 1110/21 72 of 20 of JMFC, A1 to A3 420 & 7 of Transportat
Gajwel (28/19 of EC Act ion of PDS
Raipole Police Station, rice
2
Siddipet)
08. 1124/21 380 of 2020 of AJMFC, A1 and 420 & 7 of Transportat
Gajwel (Crime A.2 EC Act ion of PDS
No.249/20 of Gajwel rice
P.S., Siddipet)
09. 2264/21 435/20 of JMFC, A1 and 420 & 7 of Transportat
Kamareddy (73/19 of A.2 EC Act ion of PDS
Bhiknoor PS) rice
10. 2298/21 333/19 of JMFC, Sole 420 & 7 of Transportat
Kamareddy (Cr.113/19 accused EC Act ion of PDS
of Devanpally Police rice
Station)
11. 2362/21 1584/19 of PJMFC, A2 and 420 & 7 of Transportat
Bhongir (Cr.74/19 of A3 EC Act ion of PDS
Bommalaramaram PS.) rice
12. 2967/21 597/15 of PDM-cum- sole 420 & 7 (a) Stocking of
JMFC, Jangoan accused (i) of EC Act PDS rice
(Cr.330/15 of Jangaon
PS)
13. 2984/21 159/18 of JMFC A1 to A.3 420 & 7 (a) Transportat
(PDM), Jangoan of EC Act ion of PDS
(Cr.364/16 of Jangaon rice
Police Station
14 3054/21 205/15 of AJMFC, sole 420 and 7 of Seizure of
Jangaon (Cr.71/15 of accused EC Act PDS rice
Devaruppala Police from the
Station) possession
of the
accused.
15 3060/21 198/16 of JMFC, Alair A1 to A.3 420, 406 Transportat
(Cr.13/16 of Gundala IPC and 7 of ion of PDS
Police Station) ECA rice
2. Heard Sri Somavarapu Satyanarayana, learned counsel for
the petitioners/accused and learned Public Prosecutor and perused
the record.
3. In the above said batch of Criminal Petitions, the offences
alleged against the petitioners/accused are purchase, stocking,
selling and illegal transportation of PDS rice. As per the charge sheets
in all the above said Criminal Petitions, the allegations leveled against
all the accused therein are that they have purchased and transported
the PDS rice illegally. Some of them have kept said PDS rice in go
downs. There is also specific allegation that they have purchased PDS
rice by paying higher amount per kg, to the cardholders. In some
cases, the accused have purchased PDS rice from the card holders up
to Rs.14/- per kg.n and Rs.16/- per kg., etc. The quantity of PDS rice
purchased is also specifically mentioned. Vehicles numbers, drivers
3
names involved in the said cases are also specifically mentioned in the
charge sheets. The Investigating Officers have also conducted
confession-cum-seizure panchanamas in the presence of panch
witnesses and also seized and sealed said stock and the same was
handed over to go downs in charges for safe custody. Thus, all the
accused have committed purchase, sale and illegal transportation of
the PDS rice which was purchased from card holders and some of
them have kept stock in go downs. Thus, all the accused have
committed the above said offences.
Contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused in the entire
batch has made the following submissions.
i) Rice is not an essential commodity,
ii) There is no notification or proceedings issued by either State
Government or Central Government declaring the rice as
essential commodity,
iii) The Investigating Officer in all the above said cases did not
examine the card holders from whom the petitioners
allegedly to have purchased the PDS rice.
iv) In none of the cases, card holders were shown as accused,
v) Card holders have to be shown as accused first and then
only persons allegedly to have purchased, sold and illegally
transported the PDS rice.
vi) Clause 17(e) of the TSPDS(C) Order, 2016 is not applicable
to the facts of the present case.
vii) Reliance was placed on G.O.Ms.No.21.
viii) Rice is a scheduled commodity but not essential
commodity
ix) Section 7 of the EC Act, deals with penalties and the
contents of the charge sheet in all the Criminal Petitions
lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the
petitioners/accused.
4
x) There is no inducement by the petitioners/accused and
there is no cheating and therefore, Section 420 is not
attracted.
xi) There is no mention about the contravention of any
provisions or any Rule including Section 7 of the EC Act in
the complaints as well as charge sheets. Therefore, the
contents of complaints and charge sheets lack ingredients of
the offences alleged against the petitioners. The authority
concerned did not cancel any card on the ground of violation
of the sale of PDS rice to the accused.
xii) He has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of
the erstwhile combined High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in
Maimuna Begum Vs. State of Telangana1, in Kailash
Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand2, Order dated
11.10.2017 in W.P.No.2769 of 2017, 01.02.2018 in
Crl.P.No.8396 of 2017.
xiii) He has also placed reliance on Standing Order No.901E,
2927E, 2559E, 929E and G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 21.11.2014.
5. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner sought to quash the charge sheets in the above said cases.
Contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor:
Learned Public Prosecutor in the entire batch of cases has
made the following submissions.
i) In the TSPDS(C) Order, 2016, it is specifically
mentioned that the Police Officer is having power to
search and seize the essential commodity.
ii) Rice is an essential commodity.
iii) Powers were delegated and there is a provision to
delegate the powers.
iv) The Investigating Officers have followed the procedure
laid down under the EC Act, Rules and also the
TSPDS(C) Order, 2016 while seizing the PDS rice and
conducting panchanama etc.,
1
2016 5 ALT 280(DB)
2
AIR 2007 SC 2626
5
v) The Investigating Officers have examined several
witnesses, after considering the statements of the said
witnesses and documentary evidence only, they have
laid charge sheets in the entire batch. There are several
triable issues in these cases.
vi) The petitioners/accused, in stead of facing trial and
proving their innocence, filed the present Criminal
Petitions to quash the proceedings in the above said
Calendar Cases.
vii) In Crl.P.No.2769 of 2017 and 8396 of 2017, the
proceedings in Calendar Cases were quashed on merits
on considering the statements etc., of the witnesses and
other factors. Whereas, in the present cases, the
Investigating Officers have recorded the statements and
collected documentary evidence and only after
consideration of the same, they have laid charge sheets.
Therefore, the facts in the above said two cases are
different from the facts of the present batch of Criminal
Petitions.
viii) He placed reliance on various judgments which will be
referred below.
6. With the said contentions, learned Public Prosecutor
sought to dismiss the present batch of Criminal Petitions.
7. In view of the above stated rival contentions, now the
points that arise for consideration before this Court are:-
1.
Whether rice is an essential commodity?
2. Whether the petitioners/accused are entitled for relief of
quashment of the Calendar Cases?
Point Nos.1 and 2:
8. To decide the above said points involved in the present batch
of Criminal Petitions, it is relevant to refer Section 2(A) of the EC Act.
Section 2(A) of the Act deals with the essential commodities
declaration etc.
9. As per Section 2(A)(1) of E.C.Act, 'essential commodity'
means a commodity specified in the Schedule.
10. Under the Schedule, list of essential commodities are
specifically mentioned. Foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils
are mentioned at serial number 3.
11. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to
issue orders for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential
commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability
at fair prices, or securing any essential commodity for the defence of
India or the efficient conduct of military operations and also for
regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of
essential commodities.
12. Likewise, Section 5 of the Act deals with the delegation of
powers under Section 3 of the Act to issue orders to the State
Government.
13. It is also relevant to note that in exercise of said powers
conferred under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the EC Act, the
Government of Telangana has issued G.O.Ms.No.29, Consumer
affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-I-CCS), Department dated
19.08.2016 promulgating the TSPDS(C) Order, 2016 in supercession
of A.P.Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2018.
14. As per clause 17 (e) of the said the TSPDS(C) Order, 2016 "if
any person is found to have purchased the rice supplied through PDS
either from the cardholder or fair price shop dealer or any other source,
he shall be liable for criminal action and imposition of penalty as may
be fixed by the competent authority."
15. Section 6(A) of the EC Act empowers the Collector to
confiscate the essential commodity seized in pursuance of the order
made under Section 3 of the EC Act, if he satisfies, that the same is in
contravention of the said order.
16. Section 6(B) of the Act deals with issuance of show cause
notice before confiscation of essential commodity and procedure is
also prescribed therein. Section 6(C) deals with appeal and as per the
same if any person aggrieved by the order of confiscation under
Section 6(A) of the Act, may file an appeal.
17. Section 7 of the EC Act provides for the penalties for
contravention of the order made under Section 3 of the EC Act.
18. It is also relevant to mention that in Elluru Chandra Obul
Reddy Vs. Joint Collector, Kadapa3 a Division Bench of the then
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, had an occasion to deal with the said
issue that whether rice and paddy are essential commodities. The
allegations against the petitioners therein were that they were in
possession of rice meant for public distribution which contravenes the
provision of A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (for short, 'the
Order, 1984'). The said Order 1984 was promulgated by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 3 read with Section 5 of the EC Act, for the purpose of
maintaining the supplies of paddy and rice, for securing its equitable
distribution and availability at fair price. The Sub Inspector of Police,
who is the Enforcement Officer, seized said rice and initiated criminal
proceedings and also proceedings under Section 6(A) of the EC Act.
The petitioners therein contended that rice and paddy are not
essential commodities under the EC Act and by virtue of the
notification dated 15.02.2002 issued by the Government of India i.e.
2008(6) ALT 538 DB
The Foodstuffs Orders 2002, there are no restrictions as to stock or
transport of paddy and rice, and that if the person or dealer is found
to have indulged in purchase of rice meant for food for work or public
distribution system, as per the clarification issued by Commissioner
of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 12.08.2002. The
only course open to the authorities, is to initiate proceedings under
the provisions of Cr.P.C, and that proceedings under Section 6-A of
the EC Act cannot be initiated.
19. Thus, the Division Bench referring to various provisions of
the Act, Control Orders, held that rice and paddy are essential
commodities and that the Enforcement Officer can search and seize
rice or paddy, if he is of prima facie opinion, that a dealer or person
contravened the provision of the Order, 1984, and that for
contravention of the said order, the dealer or the person is liable to be
prosecuted under the provisions of the Act. The Division Bench
further held that the only course open is to initiate proceedings under
the Cr.P.C. and not the proceedings under Section 6-A of the EC Act.
It further held that the Foodstuffs Order, 2002 does not take away the
powers of the Enforcement Officer under the Order, 1984 and that it
only eliminates permit or license system in respect of essential
commodities, that does not mean that a dealer can carry on business
having illegal possession of rice and that the clarification issued by
the Commissioner of Civil Supplies in his proceedings dated
12.08.2012 that where a trader indulged in purchase of rice meant for
food for work scheme, the authorities can only initiate proceedings
under Cr.P.C. is contrary to the provisions of the Order, 1984,
Division Bench thus held as follows:-
"15. From the above decisions, it is clear that raw food material
come within the meaning of foodstuff. Similarly, the articles derived
from the raw food, can be termed as foodstuff. There cannot be any
dispute that rice, after cooking, is meant for human consumption and
therefore, it can be stated to be a foodstuff. Similarly, paddy is a food
crop, which is a raw product of rice, and therefore, it can also be
termed as food stuff within the meaning of Section 2 (a) (v) of the EC
Act, 1955. Therefore, paddy or rice is an essential commodity.
(20) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners placed strong
reliance on the order issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, food
and Public Distribution, Government of India, New Delhi in G. S. R.
104 (E), dated 15. 2. 2002, which may be called as removal of
(Licensing requirements, Stock Limits and Movement Restrictions) on
Specified foodstuffs Order, 2002 (for short, the foodstuffs Order, 2002).
The said order was issued in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 3 of the Act, 1955, for securing availability of commodities
specified in the Order at fair prices through out the country. The
learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly relied upon clause 3 of the
Food Stuff Order, 2002, which reads that with the coming into effect of
the said order, any dealer may freely buy, sell, stock, sell, transport,
distribute, dispose, acquire, use or consume any quantity of wheat,
paddy/ rice, coarse grains, sugar, edible oil seeds and edible oils and
shall not require a permit or licence therefor under any order issued
under the Act, 1955. The aforementioned clause would clearly
contemplate that no permit or licence for the essential commodities is
required for the purposes as mentioned therein. The said clause in its
sweep in regard to the orders issued by the state Governments or
Central Government, under the Act, 1955, totally eliminates the permit
or licence system in respect of the essential commodities mentioned
therein for the purpose of buying, stocking, selling, transporting,
distributing, etc. But, this provision does not take away the various
other aspects under the Levy Order, 1984, except to the limited extent
of taking away the permit or licence system in transporting or storage
of the essential commodities mentioned therein. Foodstuff Order, 2002
does not take away, expressly or by necessary implication, the powers
of the enforcement Officer as depicted under the levy Order, 2002.
(21) CLAUSE 5 of the Foodstuffs Order, 2002, contemplates that
issue of any orders by the State Governments for regulating licences,
permit or otherwise, the storage, transport, distribution, disposal,
acquisition, use or consumption of any of the commodities specified in
clause 3, shall require the prior concurrence of the Central
Government. By virtue of the said provision, a person cannot be
prosecuted under the Act, 1955, or violation of any Control Order for
not taking a licence or permit for transporting or storing, etc. , of paddy
and rice. But, that does not mean that a dealer can carry on business
of illegal possession, storage or transport of rice. When a dealer is
authorized to do business legally, then only the permit or licence for
carrying on business of rice or paddy is not required with effect from
15. 2. 2002. Clause 6 of the Foodstuffs Order, 2002 reads that nothing
contained in the said Order shall affect the operation of the Public
distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 issued by the Central
Government and orders of the State Governments issued in pursuance
thereof.
28) IN view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the reference
with the following findings:
(a) The Andhra Pradesh Rice procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 is
in force;
(b) rice and paddy are essential commodities within the meaning
of section 2 (a) (v) of the Essential commodities Act, 1955;
(c) The Officer-in-charge of a police station or a Police Officer
making investigation under the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, can
search a premises and seize any essential commodity in any place
within the limits of his jurisdiction, under general penal laws;
(d) Any officer, within the meaning of section 2 (e) of the Andhra
Pradesh rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 can search and seize rice
or paddy or broken rice, including animal, vehicle, vessel or
conveyance used for carrying the stock of rice or paddy or broken rice,
if he is of the prima facie opinion that a dealer contravened any of the
provisions of the said Order.
(e) The clarification proceedings in CCS ref. No. PDS/ii
(3)/l240/2002, issued by the Commissioner of Civil supplies,
Hyderabad, dated 12. 8. 2002 is contrary to the provisions of the
Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984;
(f) A dealer or miller or purchaser of paddy or any person,
contravening the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh rice Procurement
(Levy)Order, 1984, is liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of
the Essential commodities Act, 1955.
20. Thus, the Division Bench categorically held that rice and
paddy are essential commodities within the meaning of Section 2(a) (v)
of EC Act. It is also made clear that a dealer or a miller or purchaser
of paddy or any person, contravening the order made by the
Government in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 3 read with
Section 5 of the EC Act, is liable for prosecution under the provisions
of the said Act.
21. It is also relevant to note that clause 17 of the TSPDS©
Order, 2016 deals with penalties for possessing cards, making false
entries or diverting stocks. As per clause 17(e) of the TSPDS© Order,
2016, if any person is found to have purchased the rice supplied
through PDS either from the cardholder or fair price shop dealer or
any other source, he shall be liable for criminal action and imposition
of penalty as may be fixed by the competent authority.
22. In Maimuna Begum (supra), the Division Bench,
considering the very same allegation i.e. detenus therein purchased
rice meant for public distribution system, it was held that alleged
activity of the detenus purchasing the PDS rice from card holder etc.,
completely falls outside Clause 17(A) of the Control Order, 2008. Once
there is no prohibition on such activity either under the 1995 Act or
under the Control Order, 2008 which undisputedly is the only order
that governs distribution and control of rice meant for public
distribution system, the detenus cannot be accused of committing
any offence.
23. As stated above, the Government of Telangana in exercise of
powers under Section 3 read with 5 of the EC Act that and in terms of
the order of the Ministry of Central Affairs Civil Supplies, and Public
Distribution, Government of India, GSR No.213(3), dated 20.03.2015,
in supercession of the A.P. State Public Distribution System(Control)
Order, 2008 issued G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 19.08.2016 promulgating
the TSPDS(C) Order, 2016.
24. In view of the same, the principle laid down in Maimuna
Begum (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In
the present cases. There are specific allegations of purchase of rice
from the cardholders which is after introduction of clause 17 (e) of the
Control Order 2016 and the said judgment is applicable only to a case
which falls prior to the introduction of the said provision.
25. To make it clear that the TSPDS(C) Order, 2016, was issued
by the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.29, dated
19.08.2016 which is after passing of the said judgment in Maimuna
Begum (supra) on 13.07.2016.
26. It is also relevant to note that this Court vide order dated
30.04.2021 in W.P.No.23826 of 2009 and batch referring to various
provisions of the EC Act, the above said TSPDS(C) Order, 2016 and
principle laid down by the Division Bench in Maimuna Begum
(supra) and Elluru Chandra Obul Reddy (supra), categorically held
that rice and paddy are essential commodities and there is no
requirement of obtaining license for doing business in rice and paddy
and also no restriction of movement of rice and paddy, purchase of
PDS rice from the card holders is made an offence under clause 17(e)
of the TSPDS© Order, 2016. The said Order, 2016 is promulgated by
the Government of Telangana in exercise of power under Section 3
read with 5 of the EC Act. The allegations in the complaints and
charge sheets in the present Criminal Petitions are purchase, sale,
stocking and illegal transportation of PDS rice in contravention of
Section 17(e) of the TSPDS© Order, 2016. The said rice is liable for
seizure and confiscation under Section 6 (A) of the EC Act after
following due procedure and also liable for criminal action under
Section 7 of the Act which deals with the penalties.
27. Kailash Prasad Yadav (supra) is a case where confiscation
of goods, vehicles and vessels carrying essential commodities was
considered by the Apex Court and on facts of the said case by holding
that there is no violation of Section 3 of the EC Act and therefore,
confiscation orders of vehicles were set aside by the Apex Court.
Whereas in the present case, the Investigating Officers have laid
charge sheets against the petitioners/accused for the above said
offences i.e. purchase, sale, illegal transportation of PDS rice and
offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC, Section 6(A), 7, 7(A) and
17(e) of the TSPDS(C) Order, 2016. Therefore, the said principle is not
applicable to the facts of the present cases.
28. In Miriyala Renuka Devi Vs. The State of Andhra
Pradesh4, the issue of sustainability of confiscation proceedings of
the Collector, confirmed or to some extent modified, as the case may
be, by the respective Sessions Judges, while sitting in appeal, was
considered. Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the facts
of the present batch of Cases.
29. In view of the above said authoritative law laid down by the
Division Bench in Elluru Chandra Obul Reddy Supra, in
WP.No.23826 of 2009 and batch dated 30.04.2021 supra, Rice and
Paddy are essential commodities. Clause 17 of the TSPDS© Order,
2016 deals with the penalties for possessing cards, making false
entries or diverting stocks. As per clause 17(e) of the TSPDS© Order,
2016, if any person is found to have purchased the rice supplied
through PDS either from the cardholder or fair price shop dealer or
any other source, he shall be liable for criminal action and imposition
of penalty as may be fixed by the competent authority.
30. As discussed supra in the present case, the allegations
against the petitioners/accused are that they have purchased, sold,
stocked and illegally transported the PDS rice. As discussed supra,
the Investigating Officers have recorded statements of several
witnesses and collected evidence. On appreciation of the said
2018 (1) ALD (Crl) 852 AP
statements and documentary evidence, the Investigating Officers have
laid charge sheets against the petitioners herein. Therefore, there are
several triable issues in the above said Calendar Cases. The above
said defences taken by the petitioners in the present batch of
Criminal Petitions are also triable issues. The petitioners have to take
the said defences by facing trial and prove their innocence. The said
defences cannot be considered in the present Criminal Petitions in
exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and,
therefore, the present Criminal Petitions fails and are liable to be
dismissed U/Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.
31. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The
State of Maharashtra5, wherein the Apex Court has categorically
held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case
where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous,
vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not
constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate,
it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a
meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out
whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a
reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light
of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are
disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere.
The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when
established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for
quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question
relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of
. AIR 2019 SC 847
a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether
complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged
against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations
had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process,
it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits
of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints
could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein
appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against
Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding
shall not be interdicted.
32. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs.
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors6, the Hon'ble Apex Court
referring to the various judgments rendered by it categorically held
that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section
482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest
of rare cases with extreme caution.
33. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in
view of the above said discussion, prima-facie, there are specific
allegations of purchase, sale, stocking and illegal transportation of
PDS rice against accused and according to the accused they have not
violated any provision/rule/clause of the E.C.Act or Control Order,
2016 etc. The contentions of the petitioners/accused that the
authorities have not followed the principles laid down under law while
conducting search and seizure of the stocks. Thus, the same are
triable issues. The petitioners have to face trial and prove their
innocence. They are at liberty to take the above said defences during
the trial and it is for the trial Court to decide the said defences on
merits. Thus the petitioner failed to establish any ground to quash
AIR 2021 SC 931,
the above said Calendar Cases in the entire batch of Criminal
Petitions, by this Court by invoking its inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and these Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
34. In the result, these Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
Consequently miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand
closed.
____________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Date:05.07.2021.
b/o.vvr
