STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-7-1992, passed by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Udaipur, by which the learned Special Judge dis charged the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 3/7, of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, 'the Act') and further observed that the offences under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 120-B, I.P.C. are not summary triable and, therefore, if the State so likes, it may file the charge-sheet against the accused in the competent Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22-10-1984, Bhanwar Singh, Assistant Sub-In spector of Police, Police Lines, Udaipur, was on patrolling duty in connection with Deepawali festi val. While he was in Bapu Bazar, Udaipur, he was informed by one Mukhbir that fifty-seven bags of sugar were released by the "Rajasthan Janjaati Vikas Sahkari Sangh, Udaipur, to the dealers Prakash Chandra, Kanti Lal, Hari Sing, Kalu Lal, Prem Mohan and Kamal Kumar for distribution to the consumers in the tribal areas of Jhalod, Badrana, Damna, Amaliya and Nichli Sigri (Falasiya). These dealers, instead of distributing the sugar to the consumers in the tribal areas aforesaid, sold twenty- nine bags of sugar to Prem Mohan and Kamal Kumar @ Rs. 450.00 per quintal and truck No. RJE 2887, which was carrying these bags, is stationed in Joshiyon Ki Gali and is unloading the sugar bags. He, along with other police personnel, who were accompanying him in the patrolling party, went to Joshiyon Ki Gali and found the truck No. RJE 2887 stationed in the street. On enquiry from Cleaner Ram Chandra, it was revealed that the dealer has sold twenty-nine bags of controlled sugar to the busi nessmen in Udaipur in the black-market. Bhanwar Singh, A.S.I., lodged a report of the incident at Police Station, Dhan Mandi, Udaipur and a case under Section 3/7 of the Act was registered against Prakash Chandra, Kanti Lal, Nana Lal, Kalu Lal, Prem Mohan and Kamal Kumar and twelve bags of sugar, i.e., six bags each from Prem Mohan and Kamal Kumar, were recovered. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against these accused in the Court of the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act Cases, Udaipur, for the offences under Section 3/7 of the Act as well as under Sections 406, 467 and 120-B, I.P.C. The learned Special Judge took cognizance against the accused and summoned them. At the time of stating the accusa tion, an objection was raised by the accused that the police had no jurisdiction to investigate into the matter and to make search and seizure and, there fore, no case to proceed with against the accused is made-out and the accused, therefore, deserve to be discharged and the proceedings are required to be quashed. The learned Special Judge accepted the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused and held that the police had no power to investigate into the matter under the Act and the powers vest in the Officers authorised under Clause 24 of the Rajasthan Food-grains and other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 (for short, 'the Order, 1976'). He, therefore, dis charged the accused for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Act and observed that the offences under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 120-B, I.P.C. are not summary triable and the State may, therefore, file a charge-sheet against the accused in the competent Criminal Court. It is against this order of discharge that the State has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Public Prosecu tor that no order of discharge can be passed in a summary trial and the Court has to proceed in accordance with Section 262, Cr. P.C. and it is only at the time of final hearing that the order of acquittal can be passed. It has further been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the offence under Section 10-A, of the Act is a cognizable and non -bailable and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the police under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not ousted and the Station House Officer, Police Station, Dhan Mandi, Udaipur, within whose area the alleged offence has been committed, had power to search, seize and investigate the matter and to file the charge-sheet against the accused and, therefore, the learned Special Judge was not justified in discharg ing the accused. In support of its contention, learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance over : the State of Maharashtra v. Natwar Lal Damodar Das Soni (AIR 1980 SC 593) and the State of Karnataka v. Appaiah Laxminarayana 1986 Cri LJ 1705 (Kant). The learned counsel for the respon dents, on the other hand, have supported the order of discharge passed by the Court below and submitted that the Order, 1976 creates a new offence and the Essential Commodities Act provides for the Forum by which the accused could be tried and authorises only the officers mentioned in Clause 24 of the Order, 1976 to enter into the premises, inspect, search or seize, ask question, require production of documents etc. and take action against the offender and exclude the applicability of the Code of Crimi nal Procedure. It has further been submitted that it may be assumed that the Legislature, in authorising the authorities mentioned in Clause 24 of the Order, 1976, has considered the special law as a proper recourse and, therefore, the General Law must be held to be inapplicable and as the prosecution has been launched on the basis of the report submitted by the police, which was wholly without jurisdiction, therefore, the learned Special Judge was justified in discharging the accused-respondents. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the accused respondents have placed reliance over: Ram Chandra Pansari v. the State of Bihar 1988 EFR 502, Selvan v. State (1992 (1) EFR 145) and Kanhaiya Sah v. State of Bihar (1992 (2) EFR 395). It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 that from the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence collected by the investigating agency, no case to proceed with or reading over the accusation against the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 is made-out and, therefore, the revision petition, tiled by the State, deserves to be dismissed.