RAMESH CHANDRA ARORA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the F.I.R.and investigation of case crime No. 168 of 1992 under Station 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and Section 353, IPC of P.S.Syohara, district Bijnor. A Division Bench of this Court had granted one month time to the learned Standing Counsel on 14-9-92 to file counter-affidavit. However, till today, no counter-affidavit has been filed. In view of the fact that nearly four years have elapsed, we have not granted any further time to the State to file counter-affidavit.

(2.) Shri Bagawal, Regional Food Officer, Bijnor lodged a first information report on 30-7-92 at PS Syohara alleging that he along with SDM, Senior Marketing Inspector and three Marketing Inspectors went to the godown of M/s. Ramesh Chandra Krishna Kumar at about 1.30 p.m. on 30-7-72 for the purpose of inspection. The godown was found to be closed and consequently a request was made to Shri Ramesh Chandra Arora, Proprietor of the godown, who was standing nearby to allow inspection of the same. Ramesh Chandra Arora then left for the market on the pretext of calling his Munim and bringing the key. However, he came along with Jogendra Singh, Adhyaksha of Vyapar Mandal and 25-30 other persons and said that as the Munim was not available, he would not be in a position to explain the things and showed his inability to allow inspection. He also gave a written statement to that effect. The SDM, made repeated requests to him to how inspection of the godown (Sic) but he did not accede to the same. When he was told that this amounted to an offence under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, Jogendra Singh became agitated and exhorted his companions that they should not allow the inspection of the godown under any circumstance. Thereafter, the F.I.R.was lodged against the petitioners Ramesh Chandra Arora and Joginder Singh.

(3.) Shri C.C.Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R.did not disclose commission of a cognizable offence. He has also submitted that Ramesh Kumar son of Bali Ram had executed a power of attorney in favour of his Munim-Hari Om Rastogi for the purpose of maintaining accounts of stock etc. of the Firm and for doing all works in that connection and the said power of attorney had been filed before the Deputy Regional Marketing Officer and in view thereof, the responsibility for allowing inspection was that of the Munim-Hari Om Rastogi and not of petitioner No. 1. He has further submitted that Section 10 of the L.C.Act provides that if the person contravening an Order made under Section 3 is a company, the person who was Incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the Company as well as the Company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished and as the Company also includes a Firm in view of Explanation appended to the Section, the Munim-Hari Om Rastogi shall be liable to be proceeded with.