Criminal Application (Apl) No.220 of 2014

17th April, 2014

Petitioner Counsel: Shri M.P. KHAJANCHI
Respondent Counsel: Smt. S.S. JACHAK

Cases Cited:
Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M. P., 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3473 (S.C.) =(2004) 7 SCC 490 [Para 4,6]

JUDGMENT

C. V. BHADANG, J. :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cri. P. C., for short) for quashing first information report No.3004/2014 registered against the applicant with Police Station Korpana, District Chandrapur alleging commission of offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the Act).

3. Brief facts as may be disclosed from the complaint dated 12/3/2014 filed by Yogesh Laxmanrao Pardhi, Assistant Police Inspector, Police Station Korpana are that, on 12/3/2014 when A.P.I. Pardhi along with other police staff were on petrolling duty at Korpana and when he had reached the Bus Stop, he noticed that there was a tractor coming from Wani towards Korpana. The driver of the tractor, on seeing the police party, took the tractor by the side of the road, parked it, alighted from the tractor and started going behind the shops. On suspicion, he was stopped and interrogated. On interrogation, he gave his name as Sanu @ Ajij Abdul Sheikh. He also informed that he is carrying petrol/diesel, but was unable to produce the bill/bilty or invoice. He informed that Rakeshkumar Jain is the owner and he is having those documents. As Sanu @ Ajij Sheikh was unable to give satisfactory answer, A.P.I. Pardhi contacted the Tahsildar, Korpana, to send the Inspector from the concerned department. Accordingly, Ku. Manisha Fatale, Supply Inspector came there and the owner Rakeshkumar Jain, i.e. the present applicant also arrived and showed the bill and invoice challan. It was disclosed from the same that the concerned tractor bearing No. MH-06/ AC-2948 was carrying petrol/diesel from Nagpur depot of Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to Parshunath Petroleum, Ballarshah byepass road at Chandrapur. The applicant was thereafter accosted as to why the tractor was diverted to Korpana as Korpana did not fall on the road from Nagpur to Chandrapur. The applicant informed that the driver did so. In short, according to the complaint, the driver gave evasive answers and thus it was disclosed that the applicant and his driver were carrying petrol/diesel in contravention of the provisions of the Act. In this view of the matter, a crime came to be registered against the applicant under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The present application is filed for quashing the said first information report.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the complaint and the first information report are entirely misconceived as even prima facie no offence could be said to have been committed by the applicant. It is submitted that even going by the allegations in the complaint, merely because the vehicle had taken some diverted route, it would not be sufficient to raise a suspicion much less a conclusion that it was being done in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that there is no order (issued under the Act) of which the breach is alleged and in that view of the matter, the complaint/first information report would be wholly misconceived and it be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M. P. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 490 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3473 (S.C.)], in support of his submissions.

5. On the contrary, it is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondentState that driver of the vehicle was unable to produce documents such as bill/challan and when it was produced by the applicant, it was clear that the goods were supposed to be carried from Nagpur to Chandrapur and the driver had no business to travel to Korpana. It is submitted that Korpana is in the opposite direction and would prima facie raise a presumption that petrol/diesel was being carried in contravention of the provisions of the Act, making out an offence under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act.

6. In this case the only allegation is that the vehicle was diverted to Korpana when it was supposed to travel from Nagpur to Chandrapur. The driver is supposed to have informed that, as there is no traffic on that road, he had taken that route. Be that as it may. In the case of Prakash Babu, [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3473 (S.C.)] (supra) it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that for attracting Section 7 of the Act, contravention of any order made under Section 3 is essential. In the said case, no such order was produced on record as the prosecution was relying on some scheme. In the absence of any order made under Section 3 of which the contravention was claimed, it was held that the offence under Section 7 could not be made out.

7. We find that the present application deserves to be allowed on the short ground that there is no order issued under Section 3 of the Act, of which the prosecution, is claiming breach in the present case. In that view of the matter, the complaint/first information report and the consequent proceedings, if any, would be in the nature of abuse to the process of the Court. In such circumstances, the application deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Application is allowed.

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause-[a] with no order as to costs.

Application allowed.