LAWS(P&H)-1986-2-22

VED KUMARI MITTAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On February 11, 1986
Ved Kumari Mittal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relief claimed in the present petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by Ved Kumari Mittal and others, Directors of Bhatinda Chemical and Vanaspati Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bhatinda, is for the quashing of First Information Report No.345 of the date, as back as July 25, 1983, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bhatinda under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the proceedings taken consequent thereto, which are in progress before the Special Judge, Bhatinda.

(2.) IT would be relevant to reproduce the impugned First Information Report, as extracted in extenso in the present petition and the correction of which is not disputed at both ends :

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has straightaway come to grips with the merits of the case instead of dealing with the technicalities and legality of the proceedings. It has been contended that the contents of the impugned First Information Report seek to fix liability upon the petitioners on two grounds. Firstly, that the firm of the petitioners had received 498.70 quintals of R.B.D. (Refined Bleached and Deodorised) Palm Oil and after refining and manufacturing the same, sold 495.82 quintals, with a manufacturing loss of 2.88 quintals. This is stated to be a violation of the provisions of Clause 3(1) of the Vegetable Oil Product Producers (Regulation of Refind Oil Manufacture) Order, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Order). The second allegations in the First Information Report is that the firm of the petitioners did not file Return regarding receipt and sale of R.B.D. Palm Oil after manufacturing the same, as required under the Punjab Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils Dealers Licensing Order 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 1977 Order). The two violations are alleged to be contravention of the said Orders, punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Except for these two allegations, there is no other allegation mentioned in the First Information Report.