MILAN ANANDAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitions are taken together as they enjoin the identical questions of law and facts and in both the cases common FIR registered at case crime No. 606/05 under Sections 409/420 Penal Code at P.S. Behjoi, Moradabad has been challenged However, there is little difference that in the later writ petition all the four petitioners were arrested by the police and they were subsequently released on bail pursuant to the orders passed by this Court dated 30.5.2005. In the first petition the prayer is also for the protection of the liberty of the petitioner by way of staying his arrest.

(2.) These petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India have been brought for quashing the written report registered at case crime No. 606/05 under Sections 409/420 Penal Code at P.S. Behjoi, Moradabad. It is said that the entire case has been fabricated against the petitioners so as to harass them. Even if the allegations made in the written report are accepted to be true on its face value no offence can be said to have been made by the petitioners. The petitioners are the employees of I.T.C. Ltd., a company having its registered office at 37, J.L. Nehru Road. Kolkata - 16. The company is, engaged in the procurement of wheat and other food grains and also manufacturing of food articles etc. State of U.P. formulated a 'bulk purchase scheme' in terms of which a bulk purchaser of the food grains was granted liberty to apply for and be granted a centralized licence for the purchase of food grains at various Mandis in the State with the control of operations; including filing of returns payment of Mandi fees etc., being vested in one particular Mandi Samiti In the State of U.P. The petitioners were also granted licence as a bulk purchaser in the year 2002 under Sec. 9 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1963 (hereinafter called as U.P. Act 1963). Such licence was extended time to time and it is still subsisting and the petitioners are carrying on its activities in the State of U.P. in the areas allotted to them. On 7.5.2005 a notice was given by the respondent No 3 calling upon the explanation of the company with regard to the purchase of wheat at price below the minimum supporting price. This notice was replied by the company on 12.5.2005 but without taking any decision, the impugned report was lodged. It is next contended that the company or its employees have not violated the conditions of the licence or the Government order. There was no inhibition under the law for making or affecting the quality deduction from the minimum-supporting price. Further it was also permissible under Rule 76(6) of the Niyamawali framed by State Government under the U.P. Act 1963, There are also no such allegations that the petitioners induced the farmers/ producers or any one to part with the food grains at a price lower than the minimum-supporting price. The petitioners have also not changed the purchase center and the same has been mis-described in the impugned report.

(3.) These petitions were resisted by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, which is herein the respondent No. 3. In the counter affidavit it has categorically been asserted that under the bulk purchase scheme' for food grains and other commodities, purchase centers were allotted to the licence holders by the local Mandi Samiti, Two firms namely M/s Kargil India Ltd. and M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. were allotted purchase centers in Mandi Samiti Behjoi, Moradabad with the clear terms and conditions that (i) the purchase would not be below the minimum procurement price in any case, (ii) the purchase has to be directly from the farmers and (iii) they were required to set up their godowns at a particular place from where they can make purchases. For the petitioners company the godown belonging to one Sri Madan Lal Gupta, Manager of "the Committee of Management, Varshney Inter College was notified and not the college premises. But they have changed the site of the purchase center. Not only this company has illegally procured wheat under the bulk purchase scheme much below the minimum-supporting price fixed by the State Government despite several oral warnings. A notice was also given to them for illegally making deduction from the minimum procurement price. In the reply given by the company on 12.5.2005 this itself is clear that they have made purchase of wheat at lesser amount than the minimum procurement price though described its reasons. By making the payment of price much below the 'minimum procurement price' the company and its employees have duped the State revenue such as trade tax, Mandi Samiti tax and also growers and have also committed criminal breach of trust as under the bulk purchase scheme they have been allotted specific area for making the purchase of wheat but they started taking undue advantage of such allocation,