LAXMI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge framed against the petitioner by the learned Special Judge, Jind, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The brief material facts are that on 20th August, 1988. Inspector Food and Supplies alongwith some other officials of the department inspected the premises of Askoka Dal and, General Mills at Jind. This is a sole proprietorship concern of Laxmi Chand, petitioner. Certain irregularities were noticed. These have been dealt with in sub paragraphs (a) to (h) of the order of the learned Special Judge, dated 8th July,1989 (copy Annexure P-6). In the said order land for the reasons mentioned therein,the learned Special Judge on a consideration of the material placed on the record and after hearing learned counsel for the accused as also of the State, dropped, certain items of irregularities while upholding that there was a prima-facie case on other counts. In the present petition, Mr. S. D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the order only on the ground that there, was nu case for framing a charge that the petitioner had kept-in -stock more than 250 quintals of wheat during the period 26th April 1988 to 29th June, 1988. The learned Special Judge rejected a similar contention advanced before him with observations that the accused had not produced any authentic evidence in Support of the fact that he was running Atta Chakki during the material period, and therefore. under the Haryana Fool Articles (Licensing and Price Control) Order, 1985 (as amended), he was entitled to keep upto 500 quintals of wheat. The learned counsel for the State does not dispute that according to the Licensing Order, as amended in case of Atta Chakki with 60 horse power motor or more, the aforesaid limit was upto 500 quintals. The learned State counsel has disputed the fact that the petitioner was running an Atta Chakki during the material period and he further contends that petitioner held no licence for the purpose of running the Atta Chakki from the Department of Food and Supplies. The learned counsel for the State was directed to refer to the provision requiring a licence from the Department of Food and Supplies for running an Atta Chakki. He is unable to do so. In fact, what appears to be the correct position is that wherever an Atta Chakki is situated in the Municipal area, a licence is required to be obtained from the Municipal Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner obtained such a licence from the Municipal Committee which had been got renewed from time to time. The learned counsel also relied on a certificate given by the Haryana State Electricity Board on an application made to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Station, Jind ( Annexure P-5A). It was certified by the Sub Divisional Officer that the petitioner was sanctioned 60 H. P. connection and the connection was actually given on 24th March, 1987. It is thus shown that during the material period, the petitioner was running an atta chakki with a motor of 60 H.P. and therefore the permissible quantity of wheat which he could keep in stock was upto 500 quintals.

(2.) IN view of what has been stated above, the charge relating to item No. (d) in the order of the Special Judge (Annexure P-6) is unfounded and the same is quashed. The case will, however, proceed according to law with regard to the remaining items of the charge. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 5th June, 1990.