It is not in dispute that along with the charge sheet, the
prosecution has not produced on record the order made by the
competent authority under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955. The offence punishable under Section 7 is about
contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities act. In the instant case, neither the F.I.R. nor the
charge sheet anywhere refers to any order made under Section 3 of
the said Act and its contravention having been committed by the
present applicant. In the case of Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi vs.
State of M.P., reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3473 (S.C.), 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. This law has been followed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Rakesh s/o. Mahendrakumar Jain vs. The
State of Maharashtra, reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 3144. As
no order made under Section 3 of the said Act has been produced
on record nor is there any mention either in the F.I.R. or in the
charge sheet about the contravention of a particular order passed
under Section 3 of the said Act, it would have to be held that there
is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the present applicant
for the charge made against him. In such a situation, the present
applicant would have to be discharged.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.722 OF 2014
Chandansingh son of Sadhusingh Chandel,
...VERSUS...
State of Maharashtra,
CORAM
: S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 2 nd FEBRUARY, 2015 .
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1291
4. The facts giving rise to filing of the application are as
under :
(i) On 5th September, 2012, Gadchandur Police raided
house of one Abhay Munot and found eight commercial empty gas
cylinders, four domestic empty gas cylinders, one filled domestic
gas cylinder and six gas regulators in his house, for which
possession, said Abhay Munot could not account for. At the time
of raid, Gadchandur Police also noticed one vehicle parked near
the house of said Abhay Munot and this vehicle was found to be
loaded with forty four empty gas cylinders. Upon inquiry, it was
revealed that the vehicle belonged to the present applicant and the
present applicant used to store some cylinders in the house of said
Abhay Munot with a view to distribute them at premium in the
black market. The investigation disclosed that the present
applicant was an authorized distributor for the gas cylinders of
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Hindusthan Petroleum
Corporation Limited and ran his agency under the name and style
as, “Nootan Gas Agency”. The investigation further disclosed that
there was one more person, who was the other authorized gas
distributor who also used to supply the cylinders to said Abhay
Munot with a view to distribute them at high premium in the black
market. Thus, it was found that the offence punishable under
Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,
1955 was committed in the matter and accordingly, crime was
registered against the main accused, Abhay Munot. The driver of
the vehicle which was loaded with forty four empty gas cylinders
and which was found parked near the house of the main accused
together with present applicant, the proprietor of Nootan Gas
Agency and one more person, the proprietor of another Gas Agency
were also roped in by the Police on the charge of abetment of
commission of offence punishable under Section 7 read with
Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.
(ii) After completion of the investigation, charge sheet
came to be filed against all afore stated four accused persons in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajura, District
Chandrapur. Said Abhay Munot is accused No.1, while present
applicant is accused No.3. The driver of the vehicle, Shrawan
Bobde, is accused No.2. Present applicant filed an application
under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for his discharge from the case on
the ground that no order made under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 has been produced on record by
Gadchandur Police and as per the settled law, the present applicant
could not be made an accused in such a case. The application,
however, was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order
passed on 6.5.2014. The challenge made to it by the present
applicant before the revisional Court was also dismissed by the
revisional Court, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Chandrapur by it’s order passed on 30th September, 2014.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant is before this
Court in the present application filed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.
6. According to the learned counsel for the applicant,
continuation of proceedings against the present applicant would be
an abuse of process of law as in absence of order passed under
Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 offence
punishable under Section 7 is not made out. According to the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, although the
charge sheet nowhere refers to contravention of any order passed
under Section 3 of the said Act, there is sufficient material for
proceeding further against the present applicant which can be seen
from the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 30th
September, 2014, which adequately deals with the same.
7. It is not in dispute that along with the charge sheet, the
prosecution has not produced on record the order made by the
competent authority under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955. The offence punishable under Section 7 is about
contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities act. In the instant case, neither the F.I.R. nor the
charge sheet anywhere refers to any order made under Section 3 of
the said Act and its contravention having been committed by the
present applicant. In the case of Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi vs.
State of M.P., reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3473 (S.C.), 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. This law has been followed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Rakesh s/o. Mahendrakumar Jain vs. The
State of Maharashtra, reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 3144. As
no order made under Section 3 of the said Act has been produced
on record nor is there any mention either in the F.I.R. or in the
charge sheet about the contravention of a particular order passed
under Section 3 of the said Act, it would have to be held that there
is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the present applicant
for the charge made against him. In such a situation, the present
applicant would have to be discharged. This aspect of the matter
has not at all been considered by the Courts below and, therefore, I
am of the view that the orders impugned herein are against the
settled provisions of law and as such cannot be sustained.
8. In the result, I find that the present applicant, who is
accused No.3 in Crime No.3037/2012, registered by Police Station
Gadchandur, deserves to be discharged from the case.
9. The application is allowed.
10. The present applicant is discharged from the case.
11. The application is disposed of in these terms.
JUDGE
Print Page
prosecution has not produced on record the order made by the
competent authority under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955. The offence punishable under Section 7 is about
contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities act. In the instant case, neither the F.I.R. nor the
charge sheet anywhere refers to any order made under Section 3 of
the said Act and its contravention having been committed by the
present applicant. In the case of Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi vs.
State of M.P., reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3473 (S.C.), 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. This law has been followed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Rakesh s/o. Mahendrakumar Jain vs. The
State of Maharashtra, reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 3144. As
no order made under Section 3 of the said Act has been produced
on record nor is there any mention either in the F.I.R. or in the
charge sheet about the contravention of a particular order passed
under Section 3 of the said Act, it would have to be held that there
is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the present applicant
for the charge made against him. In such a situation, the present
applicant would have to be discharged.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.722 OF 2014
Chandansingh son of Sadhusingh Chandel,
...VERSUS...
State of Maharashtra,
CORAM
: S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 2 nd FEBRUARY, 2015 .
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1291
4. The facts giving rise to filing of the application are as
under :
(i) On 5th September, 2012, Gadchandur Police raided
house of one Abhay Munot and found eight commercial empty gas
cylinders, four domestic empty gas cylinders, one filled domestic
gas cylinder and six gas regulators in his house, for which
possession, said Abhay Munot could not account for. At the time
of raid, Gadchandur Police also noticed one vehicle parked near
the house of said Abhay Munot and this vehicle was found to be
loaded with forty four empty gas cylinders. Upon inquiry, it was
revealed that the vehicle belonged to the present applicant and the
present applicant used to store some cylinders in the house of said
Abhay Munot with a view to distribute them at premium in the
black market. The investigation disclosed that the present
applicant was an authorized distributor for the gas cylinders of
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Hindusthan Petroleum
Corporation Limited and ran his agency under the name and style
as, “Nootan Gas Agency”. The investigation further disclosed that
there was one more person, who was the other authorized gas
distributor who also used to supply the cylinders to said Abhay
Munot with a view to distribute them at high premium in the black
market. Thus, it was found that the offence punishable under
Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,
1955 was committed in the matter and accordingly, crime was
registered against the main accused, Abhay Munot. The driver of
the vehicle which was loaded with forty four empty gas cylinders
and which was found parked near the house of the main accused
together with present applicant, the proprietor of Nootan Gas
Agency and one more person, the proprietor of another Gas Agency
were also roped in by the Police on the charge of abetment of
commission of offence punishable under Section 7 read with
Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.
(ii) After completion of the investigation, charge sheet
came to be filed against all afore stated four accused persons in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajura, District
Chandrapur. Said Abhay Munot is accused No.1, while present
applicant is accused No.3. The driver of the vehicle, Shrawan
Bobde, is accused No.2. Present applicant filed an application
under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for his discharge from the case on
the ground that no order made under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 has been produced on record by
Gadchandur Police and as per the settled law, the present applicant
could not be made an accused in such a case. The application,
however, was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order
passed on 6.5.2014. The challenge made to it by the present
applicant before the revisional Court was also dismissed by the
revisional Court, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Chandrapur by it’s order passed on 30th September, 2014.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant is before this
Court in the present application filed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.
6. According to the learned counsel for the applicant,
continuation of proceedings against the present applicant would be
an abuse of process of law as in absence of order passed under
Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 offence
punishable under Section 7 is not made out. According to the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, although the
charge sheet nowhere refers to contravention of any order passed
under Section 3 of the said Act, there is sufficient material for
proceeding further against the present applicant which can be seen
from the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 30th
September, 2014, which adequately deals with the same.
7. It is not in dispute that along with the charge sheet, the
prosecution has not produced on record the order made by the
competent authority under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955. The offence punishable under Section 7 is about
contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities act. In the instant case, neither the F.I.R. nor the
charge sheet anywhere refers to any order made under Section 3 of
the said Act and its contravention having been committed by the
present applicant. In the case of Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi vs.
State of M.P., reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3473 (S.C.), 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. This law has been followed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Rakesh s/o. Mahendrakumar Jain vs. The
State of Maharashtra, reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 3144. As
no order made under Section 3 of the said Act has been produced
on record nor is there any mention either in the F.I.R. or in the
charge sheet about the contravention of a particular order passed
under Section 3 of the said Act, it would have to be held that there
is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the present applicant
for the charge made against him. In such a situation, the present
applicant would have to be discharged. This aspect of the matter
has not at all been considered by the Courts below and, therefore, I
am of the view that the orders impugned herein are against the
settled provisions of law and as such cannot be sustained.
8. In the result, I find that the present applicant, who is
accused No.3 in Crime No.3037/2012, registered by Police Station
Gadchandur, deserves to be discharged from the case.
9. The application is allowed.
10. The present applicant is discharged from the case.
11. The application is disposed of in these terms.
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment