- (1.) S. I. Jafri, J. Mahendra Kumar Modi, K. K. Modi, Sridhar Gupta and H. C. Goel have filed this application in this court on 26. 5. 83, praying that the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 284 of 1982, State v. M. K. Modi and others, with respect to Crime No. 56 of 1975 of P. S. Modi Nagar (Criminal Case No. 974 of 1978), pending in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Ghaziahad, u/s 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act be quashed, whereupon this Court by its order dated 26. 5. 83 stayed further proceedings in the case and issued notice to Union of India through the Vegetable Oil Product Controller for India, New Delhi.
(2.) THE case of the accused applicants is that they have violated G. S. R. (Govt. Statutory Rules) 502-E dated 22. 11. 73 passed by the Controller, appointed under the Vegetable Oil Product Controller Order, 1947. THE applicants were manufacturing Vanaspati (Edible Oil) by the firm styled as Modi Vanaspti Manufacturing Company. THE applicant No. 1 Mahendra Kumar Modi is Managing Director, applicant No. 2 K. K. Modi is General Manager of the said company whereas applicant No. 3 Sridhar Gupta is a Chief Chemist and applicant No. 4 H. C. Goel is Chemist of Modi Vanaspti Manufacturing Company, stationed at Modi Nagar, district Ghaziabad. THE applicants were using mus tard oil in the manufacture of Vanaspati and by the aforesaid G. S. R. 502-E they were prohibited for using mustard oil in the manufacture of Vanaspati. Charge-sheet has alleged that in spite of the aforesaid prohibition order the applicants continued to use mustard oil in the manufacture of Vanaspati in violation of the aforesaid order. Conse quently, a case was registered at P. S. Modi Nagar against the Modi Vanaspati Manufactur ing Company and the applicants u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. THE investigation followed and a charge-sheet was submitted by Sri Dashrat Singh, Inspector, Vigilance, in August 1977, whereupon a Criminal Case No. 284 of 1982 was registered in the Court of C. J. M. , Ghaziabad for the violation of the aforesaid Prohibition Order dated 8. 5. 1975. The applicants on 12. 4. 78 filed an application before the C. J. M. Ghaziabad for their discharge. On 6. 5. 78 the aforesaid application came up before the C. J. M. for dis posal. During the course of hearing of the aforesaid application, an application was filed by the prosecutor, praying that another G. S. R. 696-E dated 24. 12. 74 be added in the charge-sheet in the substance of the allegation. However, the learned Magistrate took view that prayer for adding G. S. R. 696-E dated 24. 12. 74 to be considered at the stage of recording the statements of accused u/s 245 Cr. P. C. and of framing charges. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, C. J. M. Ghaziabad dismissed the application of the applicants on 22. 8. 78. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the applicants filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 6142 of 1978 in the High Court which was rejected on 7. 8. 81 by a Bench of this Court. The applicants thereafter preferred an appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court was set aside on 22. 3. 82. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Magistrate to first dispose of the application of the Prosecuting Officer dated 6. 5. 78 before framing the charges. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate after hearing the parties rejected the application dated 6. 5. 1978 and proceeded to frame charges against the ap plicants. In this way, the applicants have challenged the order dated 9. 5. 83 passed by the C. J. M. Ghaziabad by means of the present application u/s 482 Cr. P. C. and likewise the State of Utter Pradesh has challenged the order of the Magistrate dated 9. 5. 83 by prefer ring Revision No. 1583 of 1983, against the applicants and M/s. Modi Vanaspati Manufac turing Company, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad. The said revision was admitted by this court on 11. 3. 87 and it was connected with the present Criminal Misc. Application No. 4350 of 1983 , u/s 482, Cr. P. C.
(3.) I have heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for Mahendra Kumar Modi and others and also Sri G. Bhatt, learned counsel for the State. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants Mahendra Kumar Modi and others that the matter in question is not of a such serious nature and even if the violation of G. S. R. 502-E dated 22. 11. 73 is admitted by the applicants they are likely to be convicted u/s. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for which maximum sentence as provided in the Act is five years and fine. But the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the maximum sentence u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act as five years and fine and minimum sentence three months and fine was prescribed in the year 1975 when the occurrence of this case is alleged to have taken place but it was also specified in the Act that for special reasons the sentence may be less than three months and fine. The occurrence in this case had taken place in the year 1975 and since then more than 16 years have rolled on and under the circumstances great injustice would be accrued to the applicants if further proceedings are continued against them for the petty offence with which they are charged. It was further submitted by him that the C. J. M. has rightly rejected the application filed by the State for inclusion of G. S. R. 696-E by its order dated 9-5-83 relating to the prohibition of use of mustard oil in the manufacture of Vanaspati. It was further submitted by him that the said violation pertain to G. S. R. 696-E dated 24-12-74 and under the circumstances the joinder of G. S. R. 696-E dated 24. 12. 74 with G. S. R. 502-E dated 22. 11. 73 would have seriously prejudiced the applicants in defence as the charge-sheet in the case was filed in the month of August 1977 for the violation of only G. S. R. 502-E dated 22. 11. 73. He further submitted that the trial court has given good reasons in rejecting the prosecution application of 6. 5. 78.;