KISHORE KUMAR DIXIT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") for quashing the FIR vide crime No. 44/2005, dated 30-7-2005 registered by Police of Police Station, brijpur, District Panna (M. P.) against the petitioners and other co-accused persons under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") for commission of breach of Clauses 5,6 (4), 7 (4), 10 (1), 11 and 12 of the Madhya Pradesh (Khadya Padarth) Sarvajnik Nagarik Poorti Vitran scheme, 1991, M. P. Food Stuffs (Civil Supply and Distribution) Scheme, 1991 (hereinafter called "the Scheme of 1991" ).

(2.) SHORT resume of the facts necessary for decision are that the Junior supply Officer, Panna, after due enquiry on 13-12-2003 in presence of SDO (Revenue) and Sub Inspector Shri Khurshid Khan, Police Station, Brajpur along with Panchas inspected the Fair Price Shop of Prathmik Krishi Sakh sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Silghara and Diya and found 74 quintal, 16 quintal, 15. 74 quintal, wheat issued to Society by petitioner No. 2 Sheikh Baba Baksh from Leed Sanstha Thokh Upbhokta Bhandar, Panna under Scheme for distribution of wheats to persons falling below the poverty line, Antyoday Anna yojana and Mid Day Meal Programme, respectively. Along with wheat 3. 55 quintal and 80 kg rice as well as five quintal sugar unloaded in the jurisdiction of gram Panchayat, Pahadikheda (Satna Road) instead of in the shop of the society. All these commodities were seized and given on Supurdginama to petitioner No. 1 who was the Manager of the society. On enquiry, it was found that with the consent of the employee of the Leed Sanstha, the commodities were unloaded at the house of Shri Ramgopal Gupta situated in the jurisdiction of Khera Gram Panchayat. Some more commodities were also found kept illegally for the purposes of black marketing and commodities were not distributed by the Society according to Rules/scheme. It was also found that commodities were not distributed to the consumers on the fixed days by the government, therefore, the petitioners and other accused persons have committed breach of above mentioned clauses of the Scheme, 1991 read with section 3/7 of the Act.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioners has vehementally argued that FIR cannot be registered against the petitioner for breach of clauses/paras of the scheme, 1991 because the Scheme is not framed under Section 3 of the Act and petitioner No. 1 was not responsible for sale or distribution of the commodities, his job was only to supervise and commodities were unloaded at a different place from the fair price shops because of heavy rain on hilly area where the roads were damaged.