VED KUMARI MITTAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Shrimati Ved Kumari Mittal and three others, Directors of the Bhatinda Chemical and Vanaspati Mills, Bhatinda, against the Punjab State and another, with a prayer for quashing of the First Information Report No. 344 of 25th July, 1983, registered at Police Kotwali Bhatinda and the proceedings taken in consequence thereof.

(2.) THE averments in the petition may be briefly noticed. The First Information Report referred to above was lodged by means of a Memo addressed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhatinda, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda, for registration of a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against the petitioners. It is recited in the said Report that a Licence was issued to the Firm, of which the petitioners are the Directors, under the Punjab Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order') which Licence was renewed up to 31st March, 1985. It is stated that according to Clause 2(b) of the Licence, the Firm was permitted to store edible oil seeds/edible oil in Tank No. 5 situated in the Factory premises of the Firm. On 8th July, 1983, the Government Food Inspector took a sample of the article stored in the Tank for purposes of analysis. The subsequent report of the Public Analyst indicated that 'free fatty acids' in the sample were higher than the prescribed limit. The further allegation is that beef fat, which is inedible oil, was found in the sample. The First Information Report goes on to recite that the Firm did not give information to the District Magistrate within 48 hours of the storage of inedible fat in the Tank No. 5 as required in Clause 2(b) of the Licence and had thus violated the provisions of the Order. The petitioners, who are the Directors of the firm, were imputed with criminal liability under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, because they are said to be 'incharge' and 'responsible' for the conduct of the business of the Firm.

(3.) THE contention raised in the petition is that there is no allegation whatsoever in the First Information Report that the petitioners or their Firm had stored edible oil-seeds or edible oils at a place other than Tank No. 5 and hence the question of giving information to the District Magistrate within forty-eight hours did not arise. The other contention is that even if some other article had been stored in Tank No. 5, it would not amount to violation or contravention of the Licence aforesaid. This being so, the question of commission of an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act would not arise. With these contentions, the prayer made in the petition is that the First Information Report in question may be ordered to be quashed and so also the proceedings based upon the same, which are said to be an abuse of the process of the Court.