MOHAMMAD MOBIN @ PAPPU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State in Court is taken on record.

(2.) Learned Counsel for applicant submitted that the accused applicant is lodged in jail for over three months on account of alleged recovery of 500 litres of kerosene, said to be available only in Government fair price shops, without a licence or an explanation for storage thereof. Learned Counsel also submitted that under U.P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962, issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, there is no provision to show that storage of kerosene would amount to an offence, although in Section 3 thereof, storage for sale has been made an offence. It is also a submission of learned Counsel that the applicant comes from a large joint family and he had stored the alleged kerosene to celebrate Eid festival. However, he could not show any receipt or document to show as to wherefrom he got so much quantity of kerosene.

(3.) That apart, it is also a submission that cost of the total quantity of kerosene oil would only be Rs. 15000/- in market, and the offence is punishable with imprisonment from one month upto three years, with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Learned Counsel also submitted that under the Essential Commodities Act, a special enactment, prosecution by way of F.I.R is not competent and rather, the authorised officer should have filed a complaint before the magistrate.