H.S.BRAR, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a prayer has been made by the petitioners to quash FIR No. 65 dated 19.9.1991 registered against M/s Shiva Sales Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the corporation) at Police Station, Mansa under Sections 3, 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the checking made on 24.7.1991 which was one of the basis of registering the above said case against the Corporation. The registration certificate of the petitioners-firm was cancelled. The petitioners-firm filed appeal against the order of the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda (Annexure P-2). The appeal was accepted by the Director Agriculture Office, Punjab and the registration certificate was restored holding the firm not guilty of any violation. The learned counsel argued that the first information report referred to above may be quashed solely on the basis of the appellate order of the Director Agriculture as according to him in that appellate order, the petitioners have been exonerated as the petitioners found not guilty of any violation as alleged in the first information report. Learned counsel has cited Uttam Chand and Others v. Income Tax Officer Central Circle, Amritsar, 1982 ITR 909, Ramesh Kumar v. State, 1985(2) RCR 47 and Walayati Ram and others v. State, 1987(1) RCR 306 to substantiate his arguments. Reply has been filed by the respondents individually broadly denying the allegations of the petitioners. It has been stated in the reply of Sh. Ranjoth Singh, Inspector, SHO, P.S. Mansa that a report under section 173 Cr.P.C. had been submitted before the trial Court. It has come in the reply of Shri Bhagwant Singh, Chief Inspector Fertilizers on behalf of respondent No. 1 that cancellation of registeration of the certificate of registering authorities under Clause 31 and its restoration by the Appellate Authority under Clause 32 of the Fertilizers Control Order 1985 and the filing of Criminal proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are separate independent proceedings and as such acceptance of the appeal of the petitioners-firm have nothing to do with the registeration of the Criminal case against the petitioners firm.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 3 Mr. Chopra has even contested the claim of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been completely exonerated by the appellate order of the Director Agriculture. Mr. Chopra states that from the perusal of Annexure P-2 i.e. appellate order of the Director Agriculture, it is clear that while deciding the appeal, the Appellate Authority gave positive findings that the firm did not make any entry in the stock register on page 12 and entry No. 12 of 40902 bags and the said entry was inserted later on in order to save the skin of the petitioners-firm. He further submits that it is established from the perusal of the appellate order of the Director Agriculture that the petitioners-firm had made false entries in their old stock register at page 12 bearing entry No. 12. According to him a clear cut case has been made out against the petitioners and it is not the case of quashing of the first information report as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has further stated that the first information report against the petitioners is not liable to be quashed. Even otherwise as according to him challan against the petitioners have been but in the Court and a charge has not yet been framed against the petitioners. He has cited Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj, 1994(1) RCR 591, State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and another, 1992(1) RCR 232 to substantiate his arguments. Learned counsel argued that the FIR may not be quashed at this stage when the challan has been presented in the Court and prima facie case is made out against the petitioners.;