ARVIND SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears that applicant Arvind Singh Yadav produced a receipt about purchase of 600 (Six hundred) liters of diesel from a Gwalior Petrol Pump and applicant No.2 Lakhan Singh a receipt of purchase of 400 (Four hundred) liters of deisel from the same Petrol Pump before Special Court, Bhind (Sessions Judge, Bhind). Along with the receipts each of the applicants filed an application before the Court stating that the diesel covered by the receipts was being carried on their behalf which was for their agricultural use in a tractor, in a Matador bearing registration No. M.P. 07 N7073. It was further stated in the application that total diesel contained in a drum, being carried in the Matador, had been seized in special case No. 85/91 of that Court. It was prayed in the applications that the diesel be given to the applicants on their Supurdnama.

(2.) THE learned Special Judge disallowed the applications by order dated 23.7.93 refusing to give the diesel on Supurdnama observing that diesel was not an identifiable commodity and it would be difficult to procure it back in the event of its confiscation. By that order the learned Special Judge, further held that on the basis of the those applications and receipts it appeared that the applicants had also a hand in the commission of the offence under the Essential Commodities Act for contravention of M.P. Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Licensing and Control) Order 1980 along with two other accused persons, who were already being prosecuted. The learned Special Judge directed that the applicants be additionally impleaded as accused persons in the special case. Aggrieved with this part of the cirder, the applicants have filed the present revision. The receipts and applications filed by the applicants hardly showed that the applicants violated the provisions of the above said order. It will be seen from the definition of "dealer" contained in sub -clause (b) of Clause 2 of the order that dealer of Motor Spirit or High Speed Diesel Oil is one who engages himself in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of those commodities on the basis of an agreement with an Oil Company. In other words, a dealer is one who deals with an Oil Company. The receipts filed by the applicants showed that the applicants purchased diesel not from an Oil Company. but from a Petrol Pump Dealer. It would not, therefore, be said that the applicants were carrying on business as "dealer" without licence, which is prohibited under Clause 4 of the Order. Sub -clause (7) of Clause 3 of that Order is meant for persons who are not Petrol Pump Dealers or Oil Companies. That Sub -clause provides that "no person, other than a dealer or a Oil Company, shall sell oil to a user....". The' applicants were not caught selling diesel to anybody. Therefore, they did not even come within the net of Sub -clause (7). It is clear that no offence was disclosed against the applicants from their mere receipts and applications made before the Special Court. As such, that part of the impugned order taking cognizance against the applicants and directing them to be additionally impleaded as accused pet sons was improper and without any basis.