The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Wednesday observed that the petitioner could not be prosecuted for the commission of the said offence and convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, when no order/notification as envisaged under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act prohibiting the possession of a particular quantity of diesel was placed on record.
A single-judge bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Surinder Singh. The petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 561 A Cr. P.C. for quashing the order dated October 08, 2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu by virtue of which order dated February 15, 2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu discharging the petitioner was set aside.
The petition has been filed primarily on the ground that there is no order as envisaged under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act that has been contravened by the petitioner and further when the prosecution has not placed on record any such order, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the commission of the said offence and convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Dheeraj Choudhary, the counsel for the petitioner, argued that no order within the meaning of Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act was placed on record by the Investigating Officer along with the challan and that is why the petitioner was discharged for the commission of offence under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the revisional Court illegally set aside the order passed by the trial Court and observed that the trial Court should have granted further time to prosecution to place on record such order.
He further submitted that even despite repeated opportunities, no such notification/order has been placed on record the violation of which has been claimed by the respondent, to have been made by the Petitioner.
Aseem Sawhney, AAG, submitted that the revisional Court has rightly passed the order dated October 08, 2012 and there is no illegality in the order impugned.
The allegation against the Petitioner is that on May 31, 2008, SHO, Police Station Jhajjar Kotli along with police party was on the patrolling duty in a Government vehicle at ‘Kah Fota’ area and during patrolling, SHO received information from the reliable sources that the Petitioner is indulging in illegal sale of diesel and is earning undue profits and that the Petitioner was having in his possession diesel in his Karyana shop.
On the basis of said information, the SHO along with a police party raided the shop of the Petitioner and in the shop five plastic gallons containing about 100 liters of diesel were found. As such, the Petitioner by keeping in his shop 100 liters of diesel for illegal sale has committed offence under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Thereafter, an FIR bearing under sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act was registered at the Police Station, Jhajjar Kotli. During the investigation, five plastic gallons of 20 liters capacity containing about 100 liters of diesel were seized. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer proved the offences under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the Petitioner and thereafter the challan was filed.
As the respondent did not place on record any notification/order under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, so the Petitioner was discharged of the said offences order dated February 15, 2011.
The respondent preferred revision Petition against the said order of the trial Court and the revisional Court order dated October 08, 2012 set aside the said order and directed the trial Court to frame charges against the Petitioner for commission of offences under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
The revisional Court also observed that the trial Court should have granted some time to the prosecution to trace the said notification.
The Court observed, “It is clear that the notification was neither submitted before the trial Court nor before the revisional Court and also no such notification/order purported to be issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, has been placed on record before the Court despite a number of opportunities.”
“A perusal of both the provisions reveals that there must be a notification/order issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, violation of which entails the prosecution and if offence is proved, then subsequent conviction under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In the case, no such notification has been placed on record.”
“The charge can be framed against the accused even when there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence by the accused and at the same time, the learned trial court is not expected to merely act as a post office and frame the charge just because challan for commission of a particular offence has been filed against the accused.”
“The trial court can sift the evidence brought on record by the prosecution so as to find out whether the unrebutted evidence placed on record fulfils the ingredients of the offences or not. But at the same time, the trial court cannot conduct a mini trial to find out as to whether the accused can be convicted for a particular offence or not.”
“Thus, when no notification/order under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act prohibiting the possession of a particular quantity of diesel has been placed on record, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted and convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,” the Court observed.
Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court directs Rewa Collector to inquire into encroachment of public land
The Court further observed that, needless to say that the petition has remained pending for 9 years and during this period as well, the respondent has not been able to place on record any such notification/order issued under section 3 of Essential Commodities Act. The Court is of the considered view that in absence of such notification, the continuance of the proceedings under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
In view of above, the Petition is allowed and order dated October 8, 2012 passed by the revisional Court is set aside and the order dated February 15, 2011 passed by the trial court is upheld, the Court ordered.