PRAHLAD KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.187/2016 registered at Police Station- Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sec. 409, 420 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the applicant has preferred this application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, a report was made by the Food Department that the applicant who runs a Rice Mill namely Dauji Chawal Udyog had not deposited 12012.79 quintal of rice, whereas the paddy was lifted for custom milling; thereby have violated the provisions of Chhattisgarh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 2007 and had committed fraud and criminal breach of trust and offence under Sec. 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that on 3/12/2013 the applicant entered into an agreement with the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Cooperative Federation for custom milling of rice and was to deposit 67% of the rice and the respective Bank Guarantee of Rs.60.00 Lakhs was also furnished. The applicant obtained 56768.65 quintal of paddy and was suppose to deposit back 38034.99 quintal of rice but he deposited 23626.60 quintal of rice and balance quantity of 14408.39 quintal of rice was not deposited. Since the time lapsed as such exparte recovery order was passed which was subject of challenge in W.P.(C) No.1002 of 2015 wherein on the submission of the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Cooperative Federation, four months time was allowed to deposit the balance quantity of rice, however, the balance quantity when was taken to the authorities the entire rice was not accepted and only 538.15 quintal was accepted. Subsequently, RRC for Rs.2,89,88,800.00 was issued. It is stated that the entire transaction of the nature is based on the agreement and the agreement also contains a clause that in case the rice is not deposited, the respective damages will be charged and the entire deposit of paddy in the value was secured by the Bank Guarantee and the cheques. Therefore, it will only amount to civil liability and the dispute between the parties purely is civil in nature and contractual in character, consequently, no offence is made out and, as such, the applicant may be given the benefit of Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C.