ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Kumar son of Chanan Ram and Ashok Kumar son of Mool Chand, Petitoiners-1 and 2, respectively, have moved this criminal miscellaneous for quashing the FIR No. 210 dated 20-7-89, under sections 7, 10 and 55, Essential Commodities Act, Police Station City Dabwali, District Sirsa and the charges framed on the basis thereof.

(2.) THE impugned FIR was registered on the basis of a communication sent by the District Food and Supplies Controller, Sirsa to SSP stating therein that the petitioners were holding a licence to deal with food articles, No. HFGA-978 for running the business under the name and style of M/s Jindal industries, Bhatinda Road, Mandi Dabwali. On checking their business it was found that they had committed irregularities of stocks in their possession. The report of inspection was attached with the FIR.

(3.) IN a criminal charge, there must be presence of guilty mind. A person, however. cannot be punished for a bonafide mistake and further the charge must be clear. It is conceded at the bar that the Dal is gram Dal. If the items are considered together and even if there is a rough estimate, there is only a discrepancy of 49 quintals. The Inspectors of the Department who visited the premises of the firm, did not perform their duty of carrying out the weighment and fixing exact discrepancy, if any. It was their duty to examine the record and find out as to at what stage, this discrepancy had crept in Sudarswhan Lal Gupta v. Delhi Admn., 1985(2) Recent CR 171. Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J, of the Delhi High Court, dealing with a case under the E I ssential Commodities Act, observed as follows :-