Sushil Bhaguram Mohite v. The State of Maharashtra

( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)1Present application has been filed for quashing proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.89/2022 pending before 2nd Joint Civil JudgeSenior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nandurbar arisingout of First Information Report vide Crime No.468/2021 dated 14.09.2021registered with Nandurbar Taluka Police Station, Nandurbar, for the offencepunishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.C. Mayure for applicant andlearned APP Mr. V.K. Kotecha for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3Learned Advocate for applicant has taken us through contents of First Information Report and charge sheet. He submits that applicant is atrader dealing in grains. As per the prosecution story, the Supply Officer, whois the informant, states that there was a seizure of truck bearing No. MH-10-AW-7947 while transporting five gunny bags of rice on suspicion.

They wereasked about the bill and ownership of grains, however, they had not suppliedthe concrete information. Thereafter letter was issued to Supply Office toverify as to whether the said rice was meant for distributing public under the Public Distribution System. Therefore, with the help of two panchas theinformant had made inspection, took out some sample, took the statement of 354_Cri. Appln_819_2024driver and thereupon First Information Report was lodged. When the FirstInformation Report was lodged, it was against driver and co-driver of truck. It is stated that upon the inquiry in presence of panchas it was disclosed thatrice belongs to one Mohite, the wholesale dealer from Latur. Even thecomplete name of applicant has not been given. If we consider receipt or thedocument, which transporter should possess while transporting food articlelike rice, would show that it has been written that it has been sent by MangalTraders.

No doubt, present applicant is running his business under his nameas ‘Mangal Traders’, but the said document does not show that it is the Mangal Trader from Latur. There is also no document which would showthat the seized rice was meant for distribution to public through PublicDistribution System. Applicant had produced receipts before InvestigatingOfficer showing that he had purchased rice from open market, that too, fromA.P.M.C., Latur. These documents are coming from the charge sheet itself. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the offence under Sections3 and 4 of the Essential Commodities Act get attracted in the present case. 4Learned APP submits that now the investigation is over andcharge sheet is filed, therefore, let the trial be held. The documents wouldshow that the receipt was in the name of present applicant i.e. the tradename of applicant “Mangal Traders”. The sample that was extracted matches 454_Cri.

Appln_819_2024and the laboratory report dated 15.09.2021 matches to the sample of therice, which is meant for distribution through Public Distribution System. Thedrivers were not having GST bill and there was also no e-weigh bill alongwith vehicle. Therefore, there was no evidence with them as to from wherethe grain was purchased. The said rice was transported from Latur to Ahmedabad, Gujarat and, therefore, it is certainly in violation of the controlorder. 5At the outset, it can be seen from the contents of FirstInformation Report and entire charge sheet that there is not a singledocument or piece of evidence which would show that those gunny bags andthe rice belongs to Government. On the gunny bags there was noendorsement or printing of name of the Government or its agency. TheSupply Officer has not even tried to enquire from the record with Government that the said rice was allotted to a particular district or talukafor distribution it under Public Distribution System.

Unless it is shown thatrice was meant for Public Distribution System, it cannot be then said that itcannot be sold in open market. In fact, what was written on the gunny bagsappears to be private agencies. On the basis of samples it cannot be provedthat the said rice was reserved or belonged to the Government. In the FirstInformation Report it is not stated that a particular kind of rice is reserved for 554_Cri. Appln_819_2024distribution under Public Distribution System and no other agency orindividual is allowed to sell rice of that quality in the open market. Ricewould be like any other rice, whether meant for Public Distribution System orfor open market. The only fact is that there is a procedure prescribed whenthe Government makes available a quota of rice for distribution under PublicDistribution System. When record is available with the Government agency, then that ought to have been produced and not the way the investigation hasbeen done in this matter.

The evidence on record that is receipts issued bythe transport agency will not be sufficient to attract the offence under the Essential Commodities Act. Statement of co-accused is not admissible. 6One more fact that is required to be considered is Section 11 of Essential Commodities Act, which runs thus -

11. Cognizance of offences. No Court shall take cognizance of―any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing ofthe facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a publicservant as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of I860)[or any person aggrieved or any recognised consumer association, whether such person is a member of that association or not].

Therefore, taking into consideration the above Section unlessthere is a report in writing of the facts constituting an offence made by thepublic servant in writing the Court cannot take cognizance of such offence 654_Cri.