STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this revision petition, the petitioner State of Haryana seeks to challenge the order dated 30.1.1998 passed by Shri Gorakh Nath, Presiding Officer of the Special Court (constituted under the Essential Commodities Act) Sonepat whereby the accused have been discharged of an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short the Act) with liberty to the police to file a separate challan against the Suresh accused under Sections 279 and 336 IPC.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the revision petition are that on 1.1.1998 on secret information Kewal Ram SI SHO Police Station Rai alongwith other police officials accompanying him had intercepted truck No. HYC 6334 when it was coming from the side of Manauli because it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The Driver, Suresh Kumar, had stopped the truck at the naka set up by the police. Two other persons Balbir Singh and Jai Chand, accused were sitting in the truck. Jai Chand had managed to run away. At the time it was stopped the truck was carrying 125 bags of rice. As the respondents could not produce any movement order or document authorising the movement of the rice, the same was taken into possession as according to the investigating agency the rice was being taken to Delhi. On the basis of Ruqa sent to Police Station, a case under Section 7 of the Act and Sections 279 and 336 IPC was registered. After completion of the investigation, the challan was put up and when the same came up for hearing before the Special Court, the Presiding Officer was of the view that as admittedly there was no ban on the export of rice from Haryana to Delhi and the evidence collected did not show that rice had been moved out of the mill/godown of a licenced dealer or a licensed miller, the three accused could not be said to have contravened the provisions of Clause 8(i) and 8(ii) of the Haryana Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1985 (for short the Levy Order). He also came to the conclusion that in the absence of any evidence to show that the accused was engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage of rice, it could not be said that they had contravened the provisions of clause 3(i) of the Haryana Food Articles Licensing Price Control Order, 1985 (for short the Control Order). The trial Court concluded that they were merely crew of the truck which had been intercepted in the gasp of movement of the rice and therefore had not committed any offence under Section 7 of the Act.

(3.) I have heard Shri Ashish Sanghi, Advocate for the State and with his help have perused the record.