RAM DULARAY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notices on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that allegations made in the first information report can be said to be self-contradictory for the simple reason that on the on hand it is said that no verification about distribution system which is to be done by the Assistant Development Officer has taken place and at the same time it is said that on a physical verification, in absence of the petitioner after getting the lock broken, various food grain items were found to be short. Let the things be as they are, the petitioner is having fair price shop since long and no complaint from either of the sides is there and, thus, lodging of the first information report is just to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that although the report has been lodged against the petitioner, but till date no order for suspension/cancellation of the fair price shop has been passed as stated in para-13 of the petition. On these facts, this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to get protection from this Court. Issue notice to respondent no. 4 for which steps shall be taken within ten days. List this case in the month of August, 2009. Counter affidavit may be filed by the respective respondents by the next date of listing. Till next date of listing or till submission of report under Section 173/169 Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, the petitioner shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 226 of 2009, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, police station Kotwali Kunda, district Pratapgarh. Investigation shall go on and the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation.