RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the Order dated 28-4-88 by which, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred) as the Act.

(2.) This is a peculiar case which shows that to what extent Government Department can harass the public. In the Year 1977 the enforcement personnel of the State seized certain goods from the Firm of the petitioners. Proceedings were initiated under Section 6-A of the Act before the Additional Collector, Alwar. On 31-12-77, the Additional Collector ordered confiscation of the material. The Firm preferred an appeal against before the District and Sessions Judge, Alwar who was authorised to hear such appeals under Section 6(c) of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the appeal vide Order dated 16-1-78. The state aggrieved by the order of learned Sessions Judge preferred a criminal revision petition No. 80/78 in this Court and that revision petition was dismissed on 17th August, 1978. The important observation and the finding in that revision petition is that the accused firm was treated as producer. In the Lower Court the Advocate who appeared on behalf of the State admitted that the accused firm was a producer. This fact was challenged in the revision petition and the important finding is that the respondent firm being a producer could keep in its possession pulses without any stock limits, the accused firm at that time was not shown to have committed any contravention of the provisions of the Rajasthan Pulses Dealers Licensing Order, 1977(hereinafter to be referred to as) the Order, 1977. So while dismissing the revision petition of the State, the Order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 16-1-1978 was maintained. After the judgment of the S.B.Revision Petition the State submitted a complaint for that very incident against the partners on the ground that these partners of the firm have contravened the Order, 1977. The learned C.J.M. took cognizance and framed charge against the accused-persons under Section 3/7 of the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that for the very incident i.e. for confiscating the goods from the firm this court has decided that this firm is a producer and they could keep the pulses without any stock limit. I fail to understand how the learned C.J.M. framed charge against the partners of the firm. It seems that he was of this view that though the firm could not be held guilty of contravening the provisions of the Order, 1977, but its partners could be held guilty contravening the said order because they were keeping the pulses without stock limit. This is an incorrect approach by the learned C.J.M. The partners of the firm i.e. the present petitioners are running that firm as well as the business of the firm. This firm is a producer so indirectly the partners are also producer and it cannot be imagined that the partners of the firm cannot be treated as producer while the firm itself has been treated as producer. So the learned C.J.M. actually failed to understand this legal aspect. So filing a complaint against the partners of the firm which is a producer is bad with mala fide intention of the them Enforcement Officer of the State who have filed this complaint. Therefore, the proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioners are illegal and liable to be quashed.