M.WAHAJUDDIN, J. - (1.) THE appli­cants have come forward with a prayer that the F.I.R. dated July 21, 1983 and fur­ther proceedings in case crime No. 204 of 1983 P.S. Sashni Gate, Aligarh, may be quashed. A prayer for restraining the arrest of the applicants has also been made.
(2.) THE F.I.R. of the case recites that the maker of the report accompanied by some others was on July 20, 1983 at about 9 P.M. carrying checking of the vehicles at Sashni Gate Chraha, Aligarh appertaining to Essential Commodities. During such check­ing in the night intervening July 20, 1983 and July 21, 1983 about 2.30 A.M. truck No. U.T.L. 9240 arrived from the direc­tion of Aligarh, 150 bags of rice common Arwa was found therein. The truck was being taken from Meerut concern mention­ed therein for Aligarh concern. Besides the driver and cleaner there were some other persons in the truck. On demand certain papers were furnished and it was also given in writing that there were no other papers with the persons concerning rice. There were no papers concerning licence order etc. has been made and offence under Section 3[7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been committed. It is urged that M/s. Naththoo Mal Agarwal and Sons carries on business as whole-sale and Commission Agent in the food grains through its partners. Appli­cants No. 2 to 6 and the applicant No. 1 that is Firm is dealing in the sale and pur­chase of rice in and outside of State of the U.P. and various quantities were purchased from various concerns at Delhi and neces­sary formalities concerning Sale Tax Act were observed. The firm was entitled to store 500 quintals of rice as whole sale dealer and 500 quintals of rice as Commission agent. It was further urged that un­der a certain general order of June 1980 no levy was payable on rice purchased from outside the UP. and the levy order does not apply to the applicants. There were due entries concerning the purchase and there were documents showing that pur­chase was from Delhi and no levy was to be paid. The incident is of July 21, 1983. At that time the relevant provisions that was in force was Uttar Pradesh Rice and Paddy (Levy and Regulation of Trade) Order 1981. This notification is later to the notification referred to by the appli­cants. Section 3(2)(ii) is important and provides for levy and Section 3(4) and its proviso lays down for levy certificate and release certificate and also lays down that when rice is being moiety by the road, the driver or person in Charge must possess a certificate from Marketing Inspector to the effect that rice being moved is part of re­lease lot, It should also indicate the name, licence number etc. As I am going to re­ject this application I may not go into fur­ther details to in any way influence the in­vestigation in the matter. I may approach the case simply from the angle whether any interference at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will be desirable. I may at the very outset observe that while powers un­der Section 482 Cr.P C. are wide and in suitable cases where there are strong justi­fication even investigation can be quashed, powers are not to be exercised lightly. The framers of the Criminal Procedure Code have provided for a complete procedure for the First Information Report and investiga­tion by the police in cognizable cases. Cases in the Essential Commodities Act are cog­nizable cases and it would amount to interfering with the statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate such cases. In fact, provisions for investigation exist to serve the ends of justice and to help the Court. They are salutary provisions and normally any interference with such provi­sions may rather tend to defeat the ends of justice. When any levy certificate or re­lease order did not exist question of fact will need thorough probe. The F.I.R. re­cites that actually the truck was being ta­ken from concern at Meerut for Agra mean­ing thereby that the movement was inter province. I am concerned with the prima facie averments as contained in the F.I.R. In fact, if this Court in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. starts making inquiries in the nature of in­vestigation the normal procedure would not only be defeated but it would also amount to taking the responsibility and burden of the investigation upon itself which would neither be conducive to the smooth proce­dure nor would be in any way desirable. An independent agency for conducting investi­gation exists and it is better that such agency should fully investigate the matter to ascertain the true fact. It is always open to the police to submit even a final report if the case is not made out. The court also then exercises its supervisory supervision because it can either take cognizance or re­fuse to take cognizance for certain reasons under Section 190(1 )(b.) of the Cr.P.C. While I could have dismissed this applica­tion summarily without entering into the detailed discussion of the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. I consider it desirable to for­mulate an opinion on that aspect also and lay down the same. This application is summarily rejected.;