R.C.Deo Sharma - (1.) THE applicants are running a business under the name and style of M/s. Murlidhar Satish Kumar in Palia Kalan, district Kheri. THE firm deals in the sale of articles of general merchandise and has also a shop dealing in cement for which it has a dealer's licence. An inspection of the shop was made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ighasan; on 3-10-1977 and in the course of inspection he found certain irregularities being violations of various provisions of the U. P. Essential Commodities (Display of Prices & Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977. This order was issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. THE irregularities discovered were that the stock position did not tally with the stock position shown on the Board displaying prices and stock. THE said firm was also found in possession of 185 bags of cement on the plea that the owners were constructing a house and had purchased 216 bags of cement from various firms including their own firm. A first information report was lodged by the inspecting authority at the police station whereafter sanction for prosecution was obtained and a charge-sheet was submitted.
(2.) THE applicants had raised a preliminary point before the trial court stating that the charge-sheet had been submitted beyond the period of one year Which was the period of limitation prescribed under section 468 CrPC. according to them the offence was punishable under the aforesaid Order of 1977 and the said Order according to them was issued in exercise of the powers under clauses (h) and (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Section 7 lays down a punishment extending to one year's imprisonment for violation of the provisions of any order issued under the aforesaid clauses (h) and (i). As the offence complained of related to 3-10-1977 and the charge-sheet according to the petitioners was submitted on 2-4-79 clearly beyond one year even after excluding the period spent on obtaining the sanction of the District Magistrate for prosecution, it was contended that the trial court could not take cognizance of the matter by virtue of the bar under section 468 CrPC. THE contention was rejected by the trial court and a revision filed before the learned Sessions Judge also met the same fate. Feeling aggrieved the applicants have filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the orders passed by the two courts below may be set aside. It has also been contended that the entire proceedings pending before the trial court deserves to be quashed. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as also for the State. A reference to the FIR will indicate that by the large violations referred to therein are relatable to the provisions of the U. P. Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977. It was argued that this Order is referable to the powers derived under clauses (h) and (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and consequently any violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Order would be punishable with the imprisonment not exceeding one year. A perusal of the various provisions of the aforesaid Order of 1977 will, however, indicate that the subject matter of the Order though generally referable to clauses (h) and (i) is also to some extent referable to other clauses also inasmuch as under Para 5 of the aforesaid Order there is a prohibition for a retailer or whole- seller under which he cannot charge in respect of any commodity a price in excess of that fixed by the Central Government or the State Government or the manufacturer or producer, as the case may be. The violation of this provision in any case is not relatable to the clause (h) and (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the entire provisions of this Order of 1977 are confined to the powers exercisable under clauses (h) and (i) aforesaid. However, the first information report also contains allegations about the hoarding of 185 bags of cement. The allegation in the FIR, is that in case the applicants required cement for construction of the house they should have first utilised the cement which they had obtained under a permit either from his own shop or from another shop and thereafter should have obtained further stocks. This not having been done and rather cement having been procured in instalments of 25 or 50 bags from time to time, a violation has been committed of relevant rules by stocking 185 bags of cement which according to the FIR would amount to hoarding or profiteering. It is true that the rule violated under the Cement Control Order has not been specifically mentioned in the FIR but there is an averment that by keeping 185 bags of cement the applicants had acted contrary to rules. This violation, if made out in view of the relevant Control Orders relating to cement, would certainly not be relatable to contravention of any of the provisions of the U. P. Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977 issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Offences punishable upto a limit of one year's imprisonment are only those which are confined to the violation of orders issued under power exercisable under clauses (h) and (i). All the rest are punishable with imprisonment upto seven years. That being so the submission of the charge-sheet beyond one year will not be in violation of the provisions of section 468 CrPC. I am informed that a charge has not yet been framed by the trial court. Whatever offences appear to have been made out on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR, will be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate. At this stage, however, there is no ground to interfere with the proceedings pending in the trial court.
(3.) THE application under section 482 CrPC is accordingly rejected.;