GURPREET SINGH SIDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Criminal Miscellaneous whereby Gurpreet Singh Sidhu (Petitioner herein) is seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 39 dated March 20, 1998 of Police Station Sadar Moga registered under Sections 406/408 of the Indian Penal Code and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(2.) DISTRICT Manager, PUNSUP, got this case registered at Police Station Sadar, Moga. According to the version put forth by him, for the purposes of procurement of rice for Central Pool, PUNSUP purchases paddy from the market and gets it shelled from various rice millers and the rice millers supply rice to the Food Corporation of India on behalf of PUNSUP. In this manner, rice millers act as agents of PUNSUP. Paddy purchased and rice obtained after shelling belongs to the Central Government. Neither PUNSUP nor rice millers can shell paddy or supply rice without the permission of the Central Government and the safe custody of the paddy is the first and fore-most responsibility of the rice millers. As per terms of the agreement, in the year 1994-95, M/s Sidhu Rice and General Mills, District Moga, agreed to shell paddy belonging to PUNSUP and entrusted to them (M/s Sidhu Rice and General Mills, Moga) and to deliver the Rice after shelling to the Food Corporation of India. Agreement to this effect was written between District Manager, PUNSUP Faridkot and M/s Sidhu Rice and General Mills through their partner C.P.S Sidhu. In October/November, 1994, M/s Sidhu Rice and General Mills was entrusted 1,66,422 bags weighing 1,08,174.3 quintals of Super fine PR-106 variety of paddy and 530 bags weighing 344.58 quintals of IR-8 quality of paddy. In this manner, the total quantity of paddy entrusted was 1,66,952 bags containing 1,08,518.80 quintals of paddy. Shri G.S. Sidhu, partner of M/s Sidhu Rice and General Mills received this paddy and issued receipt dated November 10, 1994 in favour of PUNSUP. The yield of rice from PR-106 quality of paddy was 67% as conversion factor. M/s Sidhu Rice and General Mills, Moga was to deliver 71,027.24 quintals of rice and 2,32,195 quintals of IR-8 rice to the Food Corporation of India till February 28, 1995 on behalf of PUNSUP of specification laid down under the Punjab Rice Procurement Control Order, 1983 as amended from time to time and other orders and notifications issued by the Punjab Government. M/s Sidhu Rice and General Mills Moga did not delivery any rice to the Food Corporation of India. On May 29, 1996, the stocks of paddy entrusted and lying in the premises of M/s Sidhu Rice and General Mills, Moga were physically verified by a team. A representative of the firm available at the time of physical verification was asked by the team members to assist them but he did not respond. As per physical verification conducted by that team, a shortage of 61,265 bags of paddy was found. M/s Sidhu Rice and General Mills was called upon either to accept this shortage and respond to their letter and if they wanted the physical verification could be conducted over again. Partner of the firm took notice delivered to him personally by the official of the Corporation but he refused to acknowledge its receipt. Again the physical verification of the stock was conducted by a team from the head office on August 12, 1986 jointly with the District Food and Supplies Controller, Moga and a shortage of 52,816 bags weighing 84,349.90 quintals was found. In this manner M/s Sidhu Rice and General Mills, Moga embezzled 52,846 bags weighing 34,349.90 quintals of rice.

(3.) ARBITRATION proceedings are pending. In view of clause 17 of the agreement entered into between PUNSUP and the firm, I think that the petitioner should be allowed anticipatory bail. The Arbitrator is directed to finalise the arbitration proceedings as early as these could be finalised. In the event of arrest, the Investigating Officer will call upon the petitioner to furnish bail. The stay of arrest is made absolute but if the Arbitrator makes an award in favour of the PUNSUP, the awarded amount will be paid by the petitioner without any demur forthwith and if the petitioner fails to pay the awarded amount to the PUNSUP, the stay of arrest will become inoperative and the Investigating Officer will be free to arrest him and also the security amount will be liable right now to be adjusted towards the amount of shortages. In addition, petitioner shall deposit Rs. 10 lacs with the PUNSUP till 25th of April, 1999.