- (1.) THROUGH this application the first information report of Bundu P.S case no.61 of 2009 (G.R.No. 2656 of 2009) instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner has been sought to be quashed. The facts giving rise to this application are that on 27.6.2009, when a secret information was received that good quantity of rice and wheat have been stored by one Gopal Bhagat in his house, the informant, Block Supply Officer, Bundu along with police party raided the house and found 52 bags of rice and 20 bags of wheat stored in a room. Each bag was having marking of Food Corporation of India and as such, a case was lodged under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act alleging therein that the said food grains had been kept for selling it in the black market.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that having possession of wheat and rice of that quantity found in the house of the petitioner is not an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, as on the day when the search was made, no order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act relating to sale, purchase, stock etc. of the rice and wheat were in force and as such, the petitioner cannot be said to have contravened the provision of any of the order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and as such, is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Learned counsel further submits that empty bags having marking of Food Corporation of India is available in the open market and as such, if the wheat and rice were found kept in the bags having marking of Food Corporation of India, it would never suggest that it belongs to Food Corporation of India and were meant to be distributed under the Public Distribution System Scheme, particularly when the petitioner is not a Dealer under the Public Distribution System and when nothing has been brought on record that it was brought from the go -down of S.F.C or the Food Corporation of India unauthorizedly and under this situation, first information report is fit to be quashed. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has simply been reiterated that on search being made, 52 bags of rice and 20 bags of wheat of Food Corporation of India were seized as it had been kept illegally for selling it in the black market.
(3.) HAVING heard leaned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that admittedly 52 bags of rice and 20 bags of wheat having marking of Food Corporation of India were found stored in the house of the petitioner but the question is as to whether the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act ? The answer would be in negative as on the day when those food grains were seized, no order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act relating to sale, purchase, stock etc. were in force and as such, the petitioner cannot be said to have contravened the provision of any of the order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and hence, would not be liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Even if the bags containing wheat and rice were having marking of Food Corporation of India it would not fasten the petitioner with the liability to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as according to the petitioner empty bags having marking of Food Corporation of India are available in the open market which fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit.;