S.S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) These are six applications Under Sec. 561 -A, Code of Criminal Procedure, for the quashing of certain proceedings which have been initiated against the Applicants by the State of U.P. As the facts and the questions of law involved in them are almost identical, they were connected and heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Some of the Applicants are traders and businessmen and the others Government officials. They are all being prosecuted for various offences Under Ss. 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120 -B, IPC and Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The charge against the Applicants who are businessmen is that they conspired with the Applicants who were officials of the Supplies Department to obtain licences under the UP Coal Control Order, 1955, to which they were not; entitled. It is alleged by the State that these businessmen falsely alleged in their applications that they were partners of firms which owned brick kilns and they needed coal dust for the purpose of running these kilns. The case of the State is that in fact the alleged firms were defunct or did not exist at all, that these businessmen were running no brick kilns and obtained licence by deceiving the authorities. It is further alleged that they were able to achieve their dishonest object because certain officials of the State Government colluded with them and gave false reports that these persons were running brick kilns. It is further alleged that when the State Government got wind of this fraud it ordered an inquiry through the CID which after investigation, reported that there had been a conspiracy between these businessmen and certain officials to cheat the Government. Thereupon the State Government; ordered their prosecution and a criminal case Under Ss. 420/465/467/471/120 -B, IPC was started against them. The charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial Officer, City, Meerut, by an official of the rank of Inspector in the CID. As the legality of the charge -sheet is one of the questions involved in all these cases, it is necessary to quote it in full. As the charge -sheet in each case is almost identical, the only variations being the names of the accused concerned, it is not necessary to quote all of them. The charge -sheet in application No. 1463 of 1961 runs thus: Col. 7: Sir, In compliance with the orders of SP I/c CB, CID, Lucknow on letter No. A5008 XXV/CX, dated 23 -12 -1959 the enquiries were conducted by the CID. The enquiry revealed that accused Sri S.K. Gupta gave an application through his brother Bijaipal and filled form I as prescribed by UP Coal Control Order, 1953 for (illegible) coal for running the brick kilns in the name of M/s. Kedar Nath as its partners S/s. Kedar Nath Bijai Pal and showed the site of the kiln Aoiin Nagar Sarai in Tahsil Baghpat using their fraudulent and dishonest means, they got allotment of coal from time to time. Investigation, however, revealed that firm M/s. Kedar Nath had become defunct in the year 1951 -52 and no licence was obtained for running brick (sic) Amin Nagar Sarai from the Antarim Zila Parishad, Town Area Amin Nagar Sarai and the licence from DSO Office was obtained in 1956 for such a kiln. No such brick kiln was actually operated by the accused in Amin Nagar Sarai, the site given in Form I. Sri Bijai Pal signed the application and form I for licence and coal allotment, S.K. Gupta filled the particular of the form and made entries in R.R.S. and obtained the R.Rs. from D.S.O. Office and also obtained coal of these R.Rs. and used it for their own gain, but for purposes other than the one for which it was obtained. Thus the provisions of UP Coal Control Order 1953 were contravened. The accused achieved the object with the active help and abetment of Sri V.D Tiagi, Supply Inspector and also of Sri S.S. Swami (S.K.) now a Lekhpal, who gave a wrong report of the brick kiln functioning at the site given in Form I. The accused persons mentioned in Col. 4 of this charge sheet entered into a criminal conspiracy with object of obtaining coal by dishonest and fraudulent means and in pursuance of this conspiracy they committed forgeries of documents, dishonestly used them as genuine, also contravened provisions of UP Goal Control Order 1953 to achieve this object of conspiracy they committed offence Under Ss. 420/467/468/471/ 120 -B IPC and Under Sec. 7 Essential Supply Temp. Powers Act 1946 and are being sent up as such for being tried by a court of law. (Sd.) -IllegibleInspector, C.I.D., C.B., 15 Baje din/Raat ko tarikh Lucknow 12 - -5 - -1961 isvi kobheja gaya. 12.5.61. Janch Karne waley adhikari ke hastakshar. Each charge sheet is followed by a long list of prosecution witnesses.
(2.) The proceedings have not gone beyond the stage of the filing of the charge sheet in the court of the Magistrate. Before the court could proceed further, all the Applicants came to this Court and filed these applications Under Sec. 561 -A Code of Criminal procedure. The prayer in each is that the criminal case against the Applicants concerned be quashed. Each application is based on the following ground: - -Firstly because the UP Coal Control Order of 1955 was void and ineffective and the Applicants could not be guilty of violation of a void order; secondly, the aforesaid order being void it could not confer any benefits on the Applicants and the Applicants could not have been guilty of cheating or other offences for obtaining benefits which were no benefits under the law; thirdly the charge -sheet itself was submitted by an Officer other than a Station Officer but not superior in rank to Station Officer and therefore the entire proceedings are illegal; fourthly the allegations in the charge sheet are vague and no prosecution could be based on them. (I have mentioned only those grounds which were pressed before me during the hearing of these applications and have ignored many others which were not pressed).
(3.) I shall first consider whether the Applicants can be charged with the various offences under the IPC if the UP Coal Control Order 1955 is void and ineffective. For this purpose I shall assume that the order is void and ineffective as contended by learned Counsel for the Applicants, Mr. B.N. Sapru who argued this petition with ability. Learned counsel's argument may be summarised thus: The Applicants did not require any licence or permit under the ordinary law of the land and were entitled to carry on their trade of running brick kilns and purchasing coal dust for this purpose. The State however could impose reasonable restrictions on this right of the Applicants in the form of a licence or permit system. It passed the UP Coal Control Order of 1955 which enjoins that no person could stock, sell, store for sale or utilize coal for burning bricks except under a licence granted in accordance with the order. Thus the order required every owner of a brick kiln to obtain a licence before he could purchase and use coal for running his brick -kiln. Any contravention of this provision was made an offence punishable Under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and a person contravening it was liable to imprisonment for a term extending to three years and also liable to fine. Each of the Applicants applied for a licence. All of them deny that they made any false allegation or entered into any conspiracy with one another or with the State officials. But, Mr. Sapru argued, even assuming that the allegations made in the applications are false as alleged by the State no prima facie case of cheating Under Sec. 420 IPC or forgery Under Sec. 465 IPC or forgery of valuable security etc. Under Sec. 467 IPC or dishonestly using a forged document Under Sec. 471 IPC or criminal conspiracy Under Sec. 120 -B IPC is made out. Learned Counsel pointed out that the effect of the licencing system introduced under the UP Coal Control Order 1955 was not to confer any benefits on any member of the public but to impose restrictions on a right of trade. The order required every person running a brick kiln to obtain a licence for purchasing and using coal for his kiln. But for this order, any person could obtain coal in the open market and use it as he wished. The licence merely removed the restriction in favour of the licence -holder. It any person made false allegations in his application for a licence, the object could only be to have the restriction removed so that he could obtain coal in the market and use it for his kiln. If there had been no restriction, the application for licence would be purpose less and any false allegation made in it meaningless. Mr. Sapru argued that making a false statement or telling a lie is not an offence under the IPC unless it amounts in law to cheating. But if a person makes a false allegation or deceives another person and thereby induces that person to confer on him a benefit which is really no benefit under the law, he has committed no offence Under Sec. 420 IPC or any other related section. Counsel argued that the UP Goal Control Order being void and ineffective, it conferred no authority on the State Government to impose restrictions on the normal right of every citizen to run a brick kiln and purchase coal in the open market. Therefore, the licencing authority created had no power to issue any licence and if it did its licence conferred no benefit on the licencee which he did not already enjoy. Therefore any false statement made in the application for licence cannot be said to have induced the licencing authority to deliver to the Applicants any property or to do or omit to do anything which he would not have done if he had not been deceived. Nor could such act or omission be likely to cause damage or harm to the licencing authority in body, mind reputation or property. Mr. Sapru's argument is that the essence of cheating is that the accused must have obtained some benefit or the person cheated incurred loss or suffered detriment as the direct result of the cheating. Mr. Sapru pointed out that in this case neither the Applicant had received any benefit nor the licencing authority suffered any loss or detriment because the licence was mere scrap of paper which could not confer any benefit nor cause any loss to any one.;