SASHIBALA RAWAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Alok Singh, J. -
(1.) MR . Mangal Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that failure to make payment of the amount as directed by learned District Magistrate would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C., as well as, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act.
(2.) MR . M.A. Khan, learned AGA for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 2, submits that since in the present petition, only question of law are involved, therefore, petition may be heard and disposed of today itself. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition is being heard and decided today itself. Perusal of the FIR reveals that at the relevant time, petitioner was working as Supply Inspector; she was charged to the effect that she had made supply of the food grains without following the procedure of the supply; therefore, learned District Magistrate was pleased to pass an order dated 25.03.2013 to the effect that by making irregular supply. Petitioner has caused financial loss to the State to the tune of Rs. 1,83,712.50, therefore, same may be recovered from the present petitioner, the then Supply Inspector.
(3.) IT is further contended in the FIR that petitioner, despite the order passed by District Magistrate, failed to make payment of the penalty, imposed by the District Magistrate in administrative capacity, therefore, FIR may be lodged against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. read with 3/4 of Essential Commodity Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.