PATHERYA, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioners seek to set aside the investigation initiated by South Port P.S. being Case No. 285 of 2012 dated 28th July, 2012.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 has been appointed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 for crushing wheat for supply of Atta to BPL category of people after fortifying the same with micro nutrients and delivering the same to the MR Distributors. Pursuant to a delivery order issued on 25th July, 2012, the petitioner was to lift quantities of wheat to be distributed to the BPL category. In fact delivery was taken by the petitioner till 27th July, 2012 and the said wheat lifted was transported to its Mill and recorded in the wheat Register maintained. Subsequently delivery was also effected on the basis of instructions dated 10th August, 2012 to the nominated MR Distributors. The wheat delivered from the petitioners' godown will be reflected from the wheat register. On 28th July, 2012 an FIR was lodged by the Enforcement Directorate with the Officer-in-Charge, South Port Police Station alleging diversion of BPL wheat to Bangladesh by the petitioners. While the Enforcement Directorate alleges diversion the Food & Supplies Department which is connected with supply of BPL wheat has endorsed the quantity of wheat lifted and the quantity of wheat in the petitioners' godown and has found no irregularity in respect thereof. On 16th August, 2012 the wheat lifted by the petitioners had been delivered to the MR Distributors whose names will appear from the delivery atta register maintained. The lifting of such atta has been accepted by the respondent No.8. Therefore, the case of diversion or violation of any of the provisions of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 or imposition of punishment is unjustified. The FIR has been issued alleging violation of paragraph 6(4) of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 on the ground of diversion but in view of the wheat register which has been signed by the Inspector of Food & Supplies Department, the case of diversion does not exist and no punishment therefore can be levied on the petitioners. In view thereof the charge levelled against the petitioners is not sustainable in the eye of law and in view of the decision reported in 1992 Supp 1 SCC 335 = AIR (1992) SC 604, the FIR be quashed.
(3.) IN opposing the said application counsel for the respondent authorities submits that an FIR can be quashed only if it does not disclose any cognizable offence. On 27th July, 2012 the lorries carrying the BPL wheat was intercepted when it was diverting the said goods to Bangladesh. A seven-member enquiry committee has already been constituted to consider the said issue and several sittings have been held. The petitioners are aware of this committee, as the same has been mentioned by them in the writ petition. Admittedly the seven-member committee has not reached a conclusion as yet. The goods intercepted were found in the same lorries which had taken delivery of BPL wheat from the Food & Supplies godown. The seal of Food Corporation of India was also found on the said goods intercepted. Therefore to direct investigation is not absurd. It has been admitted that the FIR does disclose an offence and on basis of the investigation the authorities will be entitled to include further sections in the FIR. The FIR is in the embryoic stage and therefore need not be quashed. Although the wheat register has been authenticated by the Officer of the Food & Supplies Department no provision exists empowering the Officer to authenticate the stock statement. The facts are not so absurd to warrant discontinuance of investigation. The quantity of BPL wheat, markings on the bags and involvement of vehicles which took delivery of the wheat lifted by the petitioners warrant investigation. The petitioners have called for production of letter dated 16th August, 2012 and the note sheets dated 23rd August, 2012 and 28th August, 2012. The letter dated 16th August, 2012 is based on an inspection report of the Inspector from the Food & Supplies Department who has endorsed "seen". The said Inspector ought to have put in more details then just a cryptic endorsement. There is over writing in the wheat register and in some cases no signature of the Officer against such over writing. The letter dated 28th August, 2012 is nothing but a certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. This needs to be investigated and all that is sought at this stage is prima facie an investigation which will not in any way prejudice the petitioners. Therefore the FIR be not quashed.;