YOGENDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the FIR registered against the petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(2.) On 25th of April, 2008, on receipt of complaint regarding supply of sub-standard/inferior quality of food articles to Fair Price Shops from Food Corporation of India Godown, Maya Puri, the officials of Food & Supplies Department of Government of NCT of Delhi carried out an inspection of those godowns. Wheat loaded in two trucks positioned in FCI Godown, which had been released for delivery to PDS outlets, appeared to be of inferior quality. Samples were, therefore drawn from both the truck and were sealed. The officials of Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation, which is the agency that collects foodgrains from FCI godowns and transports it to Fair Price Shops all over Delhi, also drew samples from Unit Nos.4 & 10 of FCI godowns. All the samples were sealed. Though petitioner No.1 Yogender Singh, who was the Depot Manager of FCI Godown, Mayapuri, claimed that the wheat lying in Unit No.10-B and in open area in front of Unit No.4 were dumped stocks, not meant for issue for public distribution, he could not produce any document in support of his claim. The samples were duly sealed with seal of CFS and sent to PFA Laboratory for testing. As per the Test Report, none of the samples confirmed to the standard norms as extraneous matters, including mineral and damaged grains exceeded prescribed maximum limit, and further samples were also found to be insect-infested and fungus infested. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner No.1 Yogender Singh was the Depot Manager and Quality Controller of FCI Godown, Mayapuri. The petitioner No.2, Ramesh Chander Chopra is stated to be the Manager(Quality Control) of Unit No.10 & 10B at Mayapur, whereas the petitioner No.3, Fakir Chand is stated to the Manager(Quality Control) of Unit No.4 of the aforesaid Godown. The chargesheet against the petitioners has already been filed during the pendency of thee proceedings. The petitioners are seeking quashing of criminal proceedings instituted against them primarily on the following grounds:

(3.) The first question which comes up for consideration in this case is as to whether the safeguards provided in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the rights conferred by the Act on a person accused of having committed an offence punishable under that Act are available to a person who is accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section of the Essential Commodities Act.