RAM CHANDER RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Narinder Kumar, Inspector Food and Supplies, Union Territory, Chandigarh, reported to the police in Police Station Mani Majra at 6.30 P.M. on 20th April, 1988 that M/s. Ram Chander Rajinder Kumar Rice Shellers, Mani Majra, had not given to the department of Food and Supplies their share of levy rice due for the period upto 31st March, 1988, had sold their stocks in open market and did not produce before him on 20th April, 1988, at the time of his visit to their business premises, the relevant books of account indicating availability of stocks of levy rice with them. For non-production of record action to cancel their licences was taken by the department against the petitioners and for not giving to the department their share of levy rice and on account of its alleged suspected sale in open market, a case under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was got registered against them.

(2.) IN Civil Writ Petition No. 5854 decided on the August, 1989 this court got their share of levy rice delivered to the department and in Appeal No. 2/83 decided on 29th September, 1988 Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration revoked the order of cancellation of their licences. In this view of the matter the petitioners have filed Criminal Misc. 2949-M of 1990 in this Court on 13th March, 1990 for quashing the First Information Report on the ground of its being an abuse of the process of the court. It is alleged in para of the Criminal Misc. aforesaid that 1667.07 quintals of rice was lying in the mill even on 20th April, 1988 while the levy rice due from the petitioners to the department was only 707.75 quintals out of it. This factual position was conceded by the Home Secretary while deciding the appeal of the petitioners concerned on 29th September, 1988 in the words, "The appellants are allowed to sell 960 quintals of non-levy rice out of 1667 quintals rice found lying in their stock." Factual basis for the prosecution of the petitioner has thus ceased to exist.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, has, however, referred to Supreme Court observations in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and others, AIR 1989 Supreme Court I and urged that since the allegations obtaining in the First Information Report taken on their face value do constitute an offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, this Court should not quash the proceedings on the grounds of subsequent happenings in writ and appeals aforesaid. The position in this behalf was discussed threadbare by the Supreme Court itself in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another, etc. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, etc., 1988(1) RCR(Crl.) 565 (SC) : AIR 1988 Supreme Court 709 wherein it was observed, "The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima-facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage."