RAJ NARAIN ALIAS KUKA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raj Narain alias Kuka has filed the present revision petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 27-4-2000 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide which the petitioner-accused has been charge-sheeted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in FIR No. 17 dated 8-2-1998 for prima facie contravening the provisions of clauses 3 and 4 of the Lubricating Oils and Greases (Processing, Supply and Distribution Regulation) Order, 1987 (hereinafter referred as 'the Order 1987') framed under Section 3 of the Act.

(2.) In this case, FIR No. 17 dated 8-2-1998 was registered against the petitioner-accused under Section 7 of the Act and 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Mansa by the police on the basis of a secret information alleging that the petitioner-accused was manufacturing spurious mobile oil with packing of reputed companies and selling the same. Some quantity of alleged adulterated mobile oil, black oil and empty containers were recovered from his business premises. As per the notice of charge-sheet, the petitioner-accused was found carrying on the business of processing and selling the lubricated mobile oil without obtaining valid licence from the competent authority and thus has contravened the provisions of clauses 3 and 4 of the Order 1987 framed under Section 3 of the Act.

(3.) hri K. K. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire proceedings against the petitioner have been vitiated and the aforesaid charge cannot be framed against him on the ground that investigation of this case was done by Sub Inspector, who was not competent to effect search, seizure and entry in the business premises of the petitioner as per the provisions of Clause 8 (1) of the Order 1987. He further submitted that as per the Public Analyst report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh (Annexure P-2), sample of the mobile oil taken from the possession of the petitioner was not found adulterated and was found tallying with the specification of mobile oil as per ISI standard. He further submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner-accused is that he was found selling the mobile oil when the term of his license had expired. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court dated 21-11-2001 passed in Crl. Revision No. 447 of 2000, titled as Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab.