High Court
Legal Reasoning
1criappln No.1655-2022IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1655 OF 2022Yunus @ Yusuf S/o. Isaq AttarAge : 38 Years, Occu. : Business,R/o. Idgah Mohalla, Majalgaon,Tq. Majalaon, Dist. Beed. …. ApplicantVERSUSThe State of MaharashtraThrough its Investigation Officer, Police Station Majalgaon City, Dist. Beed. …. Respondent....Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S.S. Solanke And Mr. P.N. MuleyAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. A.M. Phule.…CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 11th March 2025ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.This is an application for quashing of the FirstInformation Report (for short “the F.I.R.”) and the consequentialproceedings in R.C.C. No.87 of 2022, pending before the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed, arising out ofCrime bearing No.0034 of 2022, registered with Majalgaon CityPolice Station, Dist. Beed on 12.02.2022, for the offences punishable
Legal Reasoning
2criappln No.1655-2022under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (forshort “the Act”).2.The informant, who is Police Head Constable attached tothe Office of Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kaij, Dist. Beed averred inthe report that, on 11.02.2022, at about 21.00 Hrs., AssistantSuperintendent of Police viz. Mr. Pankaj Kumawat, called him in hisoffice and informed him about the secret information that theapplicant has collected the ration’s rice from the people and stored itin a warehouse adjacent to his house at Bramhangaon Shivar,Tq. & Dist. Beed. He has planned to transport it in a truck in GujaratState and to sell the said rice in the black market. He, therefore,directed the informant to nab the applicant. Similar directions weregiven by him to Police Nayak Mr. Wanjare and API Mr. Rathod andstaff.3.The informant further averred that, two panchas werecalled and they all proceeded by a private vehicle towards theMajalgaon City Police Station. He met API Rathod and informed himabout the raid as directed by Pankaj Kumawat. They all along withtwo panchas went for raiding by a Government vehicle. Accordingly,at around 05.30 p.m., raid was effected. They found one AshokLeyland Truck bearing No.MH-51-FV-6357 and behind the vehicle, 3criappln No.1655-2022three persons were tying to pack the truck with the tarpaulin andrope. He asked them their names and on inquiry, they told theirnames viz. Yunus Isak Attar, Hanumant Warhade and SatishWaghmare.4.The informant further averred in the report that, accusedNo.2 Hanumant told that the applicant loaded the rice bags with thehelp of labours and will transport it to Gujarat. He and other policestaff verified as to whether there is rice in the white coloured gunnybags. The applicant could not produce bill or documents of purchaseof that rice. On inspection of the truck, it was found that, there was558 gunny bags of 50 Kg. each, worth of Rs.6,98,000/-. All thosegunny bags and the said truck of Rs.25,00,000/-, in totalRs.31,98,000/- were seized. Driver of the truck viz. Hanumant toldthem that he had weighed the truck and it was found to be 13120Kg., but afterwards when it was weighed along with rice at SatyamWeigh Bridge, it was 27920 Kg. Thereafter, the said truck wasbrought to the police station. On 12.02.2022, at 05.30 a.m., a reportwas lodged against the applicant under Section 3 and 7 of the Act.5.Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that theapplicant is falsely implicated in the crime. The order of prohibiting ofsell of such rice is not produced in the charge-sheet. The applicant is a 4criappln No.1655-2022businessman dealing with wholesale business of food grains. There isno question of transportation of rice belonging to the Government.There is no statement of any of the ration card holder from whom thealleged rice has been purchased. The applicant has produced thereceipt of purchase of the said rice from the wholesaler fortransportation of it. The learned Magistrate has handed over thegunny bags of said rice to the applicant for disposal. The essentialingredients of Section 3 and 7 of the Act are not establishing.6.The learned Advocate for the applicant further submittedthat though there are statements of witnesses, the applicant is falselyimplicated in the crime. He submitted if the applicants is compelled toface the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of process of Court. It islastly prayed to quash the report and charge-sheet.7.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that huge quantity of rice is seized from theapplicant. The applicant is booked for serious crime i.e. trading ofrice, which was meant for poor people under Public DistributionSystem i.e. Ratiom. There is no reason for the informant to implicatethe applicant in this crime. On that account, the application cannot beallowed. It is lastly prayed to reject the application. 5criappln No.1655-20228.In the contextual situation, it would be relevant to referthe decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash Prasad Yadavand Another Vs. State of Jharkhad and Another,MANU/SC/7602/2007 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 14, wherein the Hon’bleApex Court has categorically held that the order of confiscation to bemade under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act can bepassed only after reaching to a clear finding as to violation of theorder made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. It isheld that a valid seizure is a sine qua non for passing an order ofconfiscation of property. It is pointed out that neither in the FIR northe charge-sheet filed, there is reference of violation of any ordermade under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. 9.A reference can also be made to the judgment in the caseof CBI vs. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 379, inwhich the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :-“10.As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage ofdischarge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 ofCr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the minitrial.”10.We have perused the report and entire charge-sheet.There are statements of panch witnesses as well as police officials of 6criappln No.1655-2022raiding party. They have stated the facts as per the allegations madeby the informant in the report. The applicant’s contention is that he isa trader and selling food grains. Though the prosecution came with acase that some villagers have sold that rice to the applicant, theirstatements are not recorded. The Investigating Officer has also notrecorded the statements of Revenue officials to establish that theseized rice was distributed to the villagers from Public DistributionSystem i.e. Ration to establish the overt act of the applicant withregard to this crime.11.Even if the rice was distributed to the villagers and it wasonly for their utilization as a beneficiaries, the Investigating Officermust collect the evidence of selling of the said rice to the applicantand then, they should have made those villagers as co-accused in thesaid crime. No such investigation is done in this regard. Even if it isassumed that the applicant has collected the said rice from thevillagers, it can be held that it is not in violation of any of the orderunder Section 3 of the Act. There is no breach of the order ofauthority as per Section 3 of the Act as held in the case of KailashPrasad (Supra). The evidence collected by the Investigating Officer isnot sufficient to hold the applicant liable. 7criappln No.1655-202212.If all these aspects are considered together, the essentialingredients of Section 3 and 7 of the Act are not establishing from thereport and the statements of the witnesses. If the applicant would bedirected to face the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of process ofCourt. We are, therefore, inclined to exercise our inherent powersunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 forquashing the report and charge-sheet filed against the applicant. Theapplication deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order.ORDER1.The application stands allowed.2.The First Information Report and and the consequentialproceedings in R.C.C. No.87 of 2022, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed, arising out of Crime bearing No.0034 of 2022, registered with Majalgaon City Police Station, Dist. Beed on 12.02.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 stands quashed against the applicant. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd