Telangana High Court
Manikanta Rathod vs The State Of Telangana on 5 July, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 82, 891, 898, 899, 1025, 1060,
1409, 2191, 2247, 2256 AND 3489 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 crimes specifically mentioned therein. The
petitioners are accused in the said crimes. The offences alleged against
the petitioners are under Sections 406 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 the Telangana State Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016 ( for short, the TSPDS(C) Order, 2016).
Particulars of the said crimes impugned herein are detailed below:-
Sl. Crl.P.No. Crime Accused Offences Nature of
No number Number allegedly offence
. committed
01. 82/21 69/20 of Manikanta 420 IPC & Sale of
Mellachervu of Rathod 7 of EC Act PDS rice
Suryapet (A11) at excess
price
02. 891/21 795/20 of A1 420 IPC & Sale of
Hayathnagar 7 of EC Act PDS rice
Police Station, at excess
price.
03. 898/21 13/21 of Sole 420 IPC Transporta
Bhoompally accused and 6 and tion of
Police Station, 7 of PDS rice
Siddipet PBMSEC
Act
04. 899/21 638/20 of A1 406 and Transporta
Keesara Police 420 IPC & tion of
Station, 7 of EC Act PDS rice
05. 1025/21 680/20 of RGI A2 420 IPC Diverting
Airport and 7 (1) PDS rice
Shamshabad PS EC Act to black
market
06. 1060/21 20/21 of A1 420 IPC & Transporta
Abdullapurmet 7 EC Act tion of
P.S. PDS rice
07. 1409/21 1322/20 of A2 420 IPC & Transporta
Miyapur P.S. 7 EC Act tion of
PDS rice
2
08. 2191/21 36/21 of A1 420 IPC & Transporta
Bachannapet 17 (e) and tion of
P.S., Warangal 7-A of EC PDS rice
Act and selling
to poultry
farms.
09. 2247/21 19/21 of A1 420 IPC & Transporta
Addaguduru 7 ECA tion of
P.S., Rachakonda PDS rice
10. 2256/21 20/21 of A2 420 IPC & Transporta
Miryalguda Rural 7 EC Act tion of
P.S. PDS rice
11. 3489/21 87/21 of Alair A1 and 420 IPC & Collecting
P.S.,Racha- A.3 7 (1) EC PDS rice
Act for selling
at higher
price.
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 complaints 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. and Rs.16/- per kg., etc. The quantity of PDS rice purchased is
also specifically mentioned. Vehicles numbers, drivers names involved
in the said cases are also specifically mentioned in the complaints. 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
3
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 complaints in all the Criminal Petitions lacks the
ingredients of the offences alleged against the
petitioners/accused.
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. Therefore, the contents of complaints 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
4
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
petitioners sought to quash the above said crimes.
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., The Investigating Officers
have to record statements of the witnesses, collect
documentary evidence and file final reports in these
crimes. Thus, there are several aspects to be investigated
into.
v) The petitioners/accused, in stead of cooperating with the
Investigating Officers by furnishing information and
documents as sought by him in concluding the
investigation, filed the present Criminal Petitions to
quash the proceedings in the above said crimes.
vi) 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
1
2016 5 ALT 280(DB)
2
AIR 2007 SC 2626
5
other factors. Whereas, in the present cases, the
Investigating Officers have to investigate into the above
said crimes by recording statements of witnesses and
collecting documentary evidence and to file final reports.
Therefore, the facts in the above said two cases are
different from the facts of the present batch of Criminal
Petitions.
vii) 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 above said crimes?
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. 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
2008(6) ALT 538 DB
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 in the present crimes 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 crimes, the Investigating Officers have to
investigate into several aspects as there are specific allegations against
the petitioners/accused for the above said offences i.e. purchase, sale,
stocking and 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
2018 (1) ALD (Crl) 852 AP
the respective Sessions Judges, while sitting in appeal, are
sustainable, 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. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra5, the three judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court referring
to its earlier judgments including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal6
laid certain conclusions, for the purpose of exercising powers by High
Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C which are as under:
"....
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare
cases standard in its application for quashing under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been
formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained
previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in
the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a
rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State
2021 SCC OnLine SC 315
1992 AIR 604
operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power
of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice
or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would
result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial
process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of
offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to
its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which
must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in
progress, the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not
deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process
of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer
finds that there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be
considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the
known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It
casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard
being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint
imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down
by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan
Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
and
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only has to consider whether or not
the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits
whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not
and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR.;
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 Maharashtra7, 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
. AIR 2019 SC 847
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 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 Ors8, 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.
AIR 2021 SC 931,
33. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in
view of the above said discussion, coming to the present crimes, the
allegations against the petitioners/accused are that they have
purchased, sold, stocked and illegally transported the PDS rice and
according to the accused they have not violated any provision/rule/
clause of the E.C.Act or Control Order, 2016 etc. Therefore, there are
several factual aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating
officer. The Investigating Officer has to record statements of the
witnesses and collect documentary evidence. On consideration of the
said statements and documents if the Investigating Officer comes to a
conclusion that the accused have not committed the offences alleged
against them, he will drop the charges. Procedure is also prescribed
with regard to investigation under the Cr.P.C. Thus, the petitioner
failed to establish any ground to quash the above said crimes in the
entire batch of Criminal Petitions, by this Court by invoking its
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
34. A perusal of the material in the entire batch of Criminal
Petitions would reveal that the petitioners have filed applications
seeking release of the vehicles seized in the above said crimes. In view
of the same, it is relevant to note that the E.C.Act, is a special statute.
Procedure is prescribed with regard to confiscation of essential
commodity including the crime vehicles seized in the crimes and also
issuance of show cause notice before confiscation of essential
commodity. Section 6(A) of the E.C.Act, is appeal provision. Thus, the
petitioners herein have to avail said alternative remedy under the
E.C.Act seeking release of the vehicles seized in the above said crimes.
Neither learned counsel for the petitioners nor learned Public
Prosecutor has filed any document to show that the proceedings under
Section 6(A) of the E.C.Act were already commenced and they have
also not filed any document to show the stage of said proceedings
under Section 6(A) of the E.C.Act. The petitioners have to avail the said
remedy available under the provisions of the E.C.Act. Therefore, this
Court is not inclined to release the vehicles seized in the above said
crimes. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to avail the said
alternative remedy under the provisions of the E.C.Act.
35. Considering the punishment for the offences alleged against
the petitioners herein/accused, these Criminal Petitions are
disposed of directing the Investigating Officers in the above said
crimes, to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of
Cr.P.C., and also the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar and another9. The petitioners shall
cooperate with the Investigating Officers, by furnishing information
and documents as sought by them in concluding investigation.
With regard to the release of vehicles, liberty is granted to the
petitioners to file an appropriate applications seeking release of
vehicles before the competent authority under the provisions of the
E.C.Act, 1955.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Date:05.07.2021.
vvr
(2014) 8 SCC 273
