Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhanupratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 26 July, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
-( 1 )- MCRC No. 27519/2017
Bhanupratap Singh vs. State of MP
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(Single Bench)
Misc. Criminal Case No. 27519/2017
Bhanupratap Singh ..... PETITIONER
Versus
State of MP ..... RESPONDENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for Reporting : No
Reserved on : 08.07.2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 26th July, 2021) The petitioner by filing this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has prayed for quashment of the criminal original case No.6170/2017, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, arising out of Crime No. 481/2017 registered for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for brevity, the 'EC Act'), along with FIR (Annexure P/1).
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are, that the petitioner is running a petrol pump in the name and style M/s B.S.Filling Centre, which was allotted by Hindustan -( 2 )- MCRC No. 27519/2017 Bhanupratap Singh vs. State of MP Petroleum Corporation Limited in the area of Gram Guthina, District Gwalior. The petitioner is having valid licence to run the aforesaid filling centre. The petitioner was providing facility by distributing diesel and petrol to the consumer honestly and faithfully but suddenly on 6.9.2017 on the complaint of one Shivkumar Sharma, inspection was carried out at the petitioner's retail outlet, as the aforesaid complainant made a false complaint regarding distribution of diesel and petrol in less quantity by the petitioner. During the course of inspection no fault was found and as per stock register the balance quantity was found exact, therefore, no case is made out against the petitioner but despite above, FIR was lodged at Crime No. 481/2017 on 3.11.2017 for violation of clause 2(d) of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005, which is punishable under Section 3/7 of the E.C. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities before taking any action against the petitioner did not consider this aspect that on making physical verification no error was found and stock of petroleum product was kept as per the stock. In such circumstances, allegation in regard to short supply cannot be accepted in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the main allegation was levelled by the complainant that any equipment and chip was being used by petitioner in his dispensing unit so that short supply of petroleum product could be made to the petitioner, -( 3 )- MCRC No. 27519/2017 Bhanupratap Singh vs. State of MP but no chip or any equipment was found at the petitioner's retail outlet but in spite of this, just for making false case the petitioner has been implicated under the pressure of complainant as the complainant's father is very popular person in the society. Once no chip was found at the retail outlet then allegation of short supply is wrong and as such, there is no violation of clause 2(d) of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005.
4. It is also submitted that earlier the fine imposed had already been deposited by the petitioner as per law, therefore, again for the aforesaid common act the petitioner cannot be tried and punished again as per provisions of Section 300 of CrPC.
5. Per Contra, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor for the State that as there was breach of clause 2(d) of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 and the petitioner distributed less quantity against per litre diesel/petrol and that was managed by the petitioner by using faulty chip, therefore, there is intention of committing breach of the aforesaid Order of 2005. Hence, the case under Section 3/7 of the EC Act is specifically made out. As there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner, hence prayed for rejection of the present petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record.
-( 4 )- MCRC No. 27519/2017Bhanupratap Singh vs. State of MP
7. A Division Bench of this Court in Virendra Singh Vs. Collector, District Indore, reported as AIR 1986 M.P.159, has held that, "Where writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is heard and admitted on merits and if the order impugned is found to have been passed in clear violation of statutory provisions, the writ petition could not be rejected on ground of existence of alternative remedy."
8. Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-
"Sec. 300.-- Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence - (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof".
9. The principle of double jeopardy is based on the rule of "Autre fois acquit", means that "so long as an order of acquittal or conviction at a trial held by a competent Court of a person charged with an offence stands that person cannot again be tried on the same facts for the offence for which he was tried or for any other offence arising therefrom.'
10. In Kolla Veera Raghav Rao Vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao and another, reported as (2011) 2 -( 5 )- MCRC No. 27519/2017 Bhanupratap Singh vs. State of MP S.C.C. 703, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has propounded that, "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--S. 300
-- Applied-- Distinction with Art. 20(2), Constitution of India, stated--Appellant having been convicted under S. 138 NI Act, held, cannot be prosecuted under S.420 IPC for the same set of facts -
Constitution of India -Art.20(2)--
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138."
11. It is reckoned that article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once but Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence on the same facts.
12. A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall not be liable to be tried again for the same offence while such conviction or acquittal remains in force. No person can be tried again for the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Sub Section (1) of Section 221 of Cr.P.C. for which he might have been convicted under Section thereof.
13. In my considered opinion, when the petitioner in a case instituted against him was tried and was convicted and the said conviction has attained finality, and still remains in force, in such state of affairs on the same set of facts the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the -( 6 )- MCRC No. 27519/2017 Bhanupratap Singh vs. State of MP offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.
14. Thus, this petition is allowed and the FIR at Crime No.481/2017 dated 3.11.2017 registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, as well as proceedings of Criminal Original Case No. 6170/2017 pending before JMFC, Gwalior, are hereby quashed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerning trial Court.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
(Yog) Judge.
YOGESH VERMA
2021.07.26
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
15:37:41 +05'30'