VIJAY PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been filed by Vijay Pal Singh against the order dated 1.9.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Gurgaon vide which he alongwith his other three co-accused has been charged under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravening the provisions of Haryana Kerosene Dealers Licencing Order, 1976 (in short to be called the Order of 1976). It is worth mentioning here that the other three co-accused of the petitioner have not challenged the charge.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Rajinder Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, learned Assistant Advocate General representing the State of Haryana.

(3.) Mr. Goyal has placed on record the report (Annexure P1) submitted under Section 173 Cr. P.C. (Challan form) after completion of investigation and has contended that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the tempo and the jeep were in the name of the petitioner and even if the prosecution version is taken to be true as it is, the petitioner could not be charged for having contravened the provisions of the Order of 1976, punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Mr. Goyal has further contended that clause II of the order of 1976 was amended by Haryana Kerosene Dealers Licencing (1st Amendment) Order 1986, which was Iurther amended by Haryana Kerosene Dealers Licencing (Amendment) Order 1995. He further contended that according to clause 11 of the Order of 1976 (as amended), power of entry, search and seizure has been given only to the Director, District Magistrate or any officer of the Food and Supplies Department not below the rank of the Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, within the area of his jurisdiction and none else. However, in the present case the search and seizure has been made by SI/SHO, ASI and HC and as such the seizure and search being in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Haryana Kerosene Dealers Licencing Order, 1976, as amended by the Orders of 1986 and 1995, the impugned charge is liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decisions in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1991 2 RCR(Cri) 140and Harpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1991 3 RCR(Cri) 307.