- (1.) The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. claiming the following reliefs: "1. The impugned order dated 12.03.2019 and 15.03.2019 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No. 405/2018 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be discharged from the charges framed against him; and 2. The Charge sheet filed by the Police against the petitioner in relation to FIR No. 171/2018 registered at P.S. Suratgarh District Sriganganagar may kindly be quashed and set aside; and 3. The proceeding pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in the form of Case No.405/2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside with consequential relief by directing that the seized vehicle as also the cost of the diesel allegedly recovered from the petitioner may be released unconditionally and forthwith in favour of the humble petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case are that while the police officials were on routine round on 4.4.2018, they were informed that the petitioner Kashi Ram is engaged in bringing diesel from Punjab and selling it at Suratgarh, illegally. On this, a decoy was sent for purchasing 5 ltrs. Diesel from the petitioner's shop. On finding the information to be correct, a raid was conducted and a total of 1030 ltrs diesel was found in plastic drums and the petitioner could not produce any bill. 3. After usual formalities and preparing the seizure memo, an FIR No.171/2018 was registered at Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar where criminal case No.405/2018 was registered and the cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the E.C. Act. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Balveer Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1206/2016 decided on 10.08.2017. The judgment reads as follows: "1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred against the order dated 07.11.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.852/2009, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and against the order dated 07.04.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act; for quashing the proceeding in Criminal Case No.447/2011 under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Section 120-B IPC in FIR No.91/2006 dated 28.07.2006 registered at Police Station, Khedapa, District Jodhpur pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District and; for quashing the proceeding in Criminal Case No.445/2011 under Section 3/7, 8 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Section 120-B IPC in FIR No.90/2006 dated 28.07.2006 registered at Police Station, Khedapa, District Jodhpur pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur District.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Karamjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.1361/2014 alongwith six other connected matters, decided on 02.02.2016), wherein the following order had been passed:- " These revisions arise out of identical proceedings of confiscation of diesel and vehicles pursuant to seizures effected by the officers of the District Food and Civil Supplies Department, Sri Ganganagar under the provisions of the E.C. Act on different dates. Since identical questions of facts and law are involved in these revisions, the same are being decided by this common order. Enforcement Officers working under the District Supply Officer, Sri Ganganagar seized diesel exceeding 1,000 ltrs. from different vehicles owned by the present petitioners on different dates under the provisions of Rajasthan Petroleum Products (Licencing and Control) Order, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order of 1990) and Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order of 2005). Proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act were instituted before the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar for confiscation of the seized vehicles as well as the seized diesel. The District Collector confiscated the vehicles and directed that the same shall be released to the respective registered owners upon depositing the fine quantified in each case. The seized diesel was also directed to be confiscated and auctioned. The petitioners preferred appeals against the orders of confiscation which too have been decided against them by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar upon which, these revisions have been preferred. The details of the orders passed in the various matters are noted hereinabove: Shri Sandhu and Shri Jain, learned counsel representing the petitioners, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Jangir Singh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014(2) Cr.L.R. 942 and urged that the controversy involved herein is squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid judgment and thus, the revisions deserve to be allowed and the orders of confiscation of the vehicles as well as diesel passed by the District Collector and the appellate court's orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. They contend that the subject matter of the seizure is covered by two Control orders issued by the Government of India; (i) Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order of 2005) and (ii) Petroleum Products (Maintenance of Production, Storage and Supply) Order, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order of 1999).
(3.) These orders as well as the State Government's Control Order of 1990 have all been issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act. They submit that the Central Government's Control Orders would have an over-riding effect on a Control order issued by the State Government as they all cover the same subject. They rely on the notification dated 10.04.2006 issued by the State Government under the Control Order, 2005 whereby, officers not below the rank of Additional DSO have been authorised to take action under the said Control Order. They further contend that under the Control Order of 1999, retail sale of petroleum products upto 2500 ltrs. is permissible to one person at a time. Thus, they contend that the restriction contained in the State Government's Control order, 1990 putting a cap. of 1,000 ltrs. on possession, storage and sale of petroleum products runs contrary to the Central Government Control Orders. They urged that admittedly the seizures in question were made by the Enforcement Officers who are not authorised to act under the Central Government's Control Orders, 2005 and 1999 and therefore, the whole search and seizure proceedings are vitiated and consequently, the orders of confiscation passed by the District Collector and the appellate court's orders are totally illegal and deserve to be set aside. They further contend that the diesel was seized while it was in the process of being transported and therefore also, the Control Order of 1990, which only deals with storage, has no application to the cases at hand.;