HAR PRAKASH AND CO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. Banerji, J. The petitioners have come to his Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the F. I. R. dated 7-8-1984 relating to Crime No. 191 of 1984 under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, P. S. Purani Basti, District Basti (Annexure T to the writ petition) and the orders for pale of the mustard seeds passed by the Collector, Basti on 10-9-1984 and 26-9-84 (Annexure 3' and '4' to the writ petition ). There is further prayer for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to prosecute the petitioners under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act in pursuance of the aforesaid F. I. R. lodged against the petitioners and not to confiscate or sell the mustard seeds seized from the premises of the petitioners.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. THE petitioner's Oil Mill is known as M/s. Har Prakash and Co. Oil and Flour Mill at Pandey Bazar, Purani Basti in the city of Basti for grinding mustard seeds to produce mustard oil. THE Oil Mill is owned by M/s. Har Prakash and Co. which is a registered partnership firm. On the 7th August, iy84 the S. D. M. Basti conducted an inspection of the petitioner's firm and made physical verification of the mustard seeds kept in the go down and also examined to stock register. THE S. D. M. sealed 227 bags of mustard seeds and gave them in the custody of one Piras Nath of Pandey Bazar, An F. I. R. was lodged at about 4 p. m. of the same day at the police station against the petitioners Har Prakash and Arun Kumar, partners of the firm, under Section 3/7 or Essential Commodities Act. THE entry in the register of the firm mentioned 150 bags of mustard seeds in the stock, but in reality 227 bags of mustard seeds were found in the go down. THEse were ordered to be confiscated and sold subsequently.

(3.) THE principal question before us, as alleged by the learned counsel, was that the actual offence for which the petitioners were charged was under the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977. In other words the charge against the petitioners was that they had not maintained the stock book in accordance with the aforesaid 1977 Order. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that their case was not covered under the aforesaid 1977 Order firstly, the petitioners were neither whole-sellers nor retailers who were under obligation to exhibit the price list and stock. THEy were manufacturers or producers and were under no obliga tion to exhibit the price list or stock held by them. It was further urged that the mustard seeds held by them did not come within the entries in the schedule appended to 1977 Order. Entry No. 8 relates to other edible oils. THE item for which the petitioners had been charged is mustard seeds and not edible oils. After crushing in the expeller the product is mustard oil, which is one of the edible oils, but the offence charged is of possessing mustard seeds in excess quantity than were entered in the register and non- maintenance of the register in accordance with 1977 Order. THE later required only to exhibit the price list and stock in respect of any of the items mentioned in the Schedule. Since mustard seeds is not included in the Schedule, the question of committing any offence against the provisions of 1977 Order does not arise.