RAMESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Rameshwar Singh is a dealer in diesel oil etc. holding licence in Form B issued on April 19, 1975 Annex. No 1 to this petition and renewed from time to time by the concerned authorities. The last renewal endorsement on the licence extends upto 31.3 1986. On January 7, 1986 the A.D.M. (Civil Supplies) inspected the shop, which was closed bearing certain marks of dealing in oil, the shop was sealed. On January 10, 1986 the petitioner approached the Officer concerned and in his presence the shop was opened, when certain articles allegedly connected with sale of diesel oil were found in the shop. The petitioner Rameshwar Singh produced the licence Annexure No. 1 which, however, was found not to be in accordance with the requirement of law. An F.I.R. copy Annexure No. 4, was, therefore, lodged against the petitioner on January 14, 1886 with the allegation that till December 23, 1985 the petitioner had sold diesel oil without holding a proper licence and thereby had violated the U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of the petitioner's prosecution on the basis of Annexure No. 4 on the ground that the petitioner did hold a licence copy Annexure No. 1, which had been renewed by the concerned authorities till March 31, 1986 and, therefore, the prosecution constituted an abuse of the process of the Court. The learned State Counsel has received instructions which indicate that the criminality of the applicant is confined to the fact that the licence held by the petitioner is in Form B whereas it ought to have been in Form C. Since that alone is the ground for the proposed prosecution of the petitioner, I am satisfied that the prosecution should not be permitted to continue because the Department itself was instrumental in permitting the petitioner to carry on trade in the commodity concerned by renewing the licence in Form B upto March 31, 1986. It is of course the duty of the petitioner to obtain the licence on the proper form but it was equally the duty of the Department not to renew the licence on an incorrect form. The up -shot is that the infringement is purely formal and should not be allowed to constitute a basis for the prosecution of the petitioner. It is, however, expected that the petitioner would obtain renewal on proper form without further delay.

(2.) WITH the above observations the petition is allowed and the proceeding, if any, for the prosecution on the basis of the F.I.R. copy Annexure No. 4 to this petition is quashed.