- (1.) THE prayer of the petitioner is to quash the First Informa tion Report dated 14-8-1982 giving rise to Case Crime No. 256 of 1992 under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit as contained in Annexure 7.
(2.) A perusal of the document ap pended as Annexure-7 shows that it is a plain copy of report dated 14- 8-92 of Kuldip Singh, Marketing Inspector, Bareilly Headquarters R. F. O. Office. The docu ment shows that along with it checking report as well as photo copy of the order of the Pargana Adhikari, Bisalpur were also attached with it. Sri A. N. Srivastava, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informs us that a copy of the checking report dated 10-8-92 has been appended as Annexure-2 to the writ peti tion. He contended that since the allega tion was of violation of the provisions of Sections 28 (2) and 28 (3) of the Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 1989, which stood repealed before the alleged occurrence, the F. I. R. is liable to be quashed. He further contended that the F. I. R. was lodged at the instance of Respondent No. 5 who was Deputy Mini ster of State for Milk Development on account of political rivalry. Sri P. K. Bisaria, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, contended that true it is that Clauses 28 (2) and 28 (3) of the Con trol Order were repealed but having regard to the peculiar facts and cir cumstances the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and thus this Court will not be justified in precluding the Police from making statutory investigation and hook ing the petitioner under the appropriate law. The allegation of mala fide lacks sub stance, which has not been supported by any cogent or reliable material. Accord ingly, the writ petition be dismissed.
(3.) SRI SRIvastava, in reply, contended that the Essential Commodities Act being a special Act and there being no violation of it the petitioner cannot be charged to have violated Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, which is the general law he-sides ingredients constituting offence under Section 406 having lacking in the impugned First Information Report, for these reasons also the impugned First In formation Report is liable to be quashed. Sri Bisaria in his further reply con tended that from the averments made in the checking report it is clear that the truth or otherwise in regard to stock of kerosene oil was possible only from the physical verification of the stock with reference to the record, which was not produced on the pretext that the salesman is on leave. Our Findings:;