Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Samir And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 January, 2020
Bench: Manoj Misra, Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1291 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mohammad Samir And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2; and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 02.09.2018 registered as Case Crime No.699 of 2018, under Section 420 IPC, under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act and section 43(Ka) of I.T. Act, 2000, P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut.
The impugned first information report has been lodged against multiple fair price shop dealers.
The allegations are to the effect that for effective distribution of scheduled commodities under the Public Distribution System, the biometrics of an unit holder, matched with his Adhar Card data, is utilized to activate e-PoS machine to enable distribution.
The allegation is that from the data collected by the NIC, it appeared that the biometrics of certain unit holders were common as they were lifted from Adhaar data and seeded against another person's Adhaar Card number to enable distribution, which clearly suggested that the scheduled commodities were not distributed to unit holders but was only shown to have been distributed by utilizing their biometrics.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that such large scale manipulation is not possible at the level of a fair price shop dealer and therefore the fair price shop dealer is entitled to protection.
The learned A.G.A. has pointed out that since distribution is activated by using biometrics of a unit holder on the e-PoS machine which is there with the fair price shop dealer, if common biometrics is used against different card holders, the involvement of the fair price shop dealer cannot be ruled out and, therefore, prima facie, the involvement of the fair price shop dealer is writ large.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions.
We are of the view that since it is not in dispute that distribution of the scheduled commodities is activated by utilizing the biometrics of a unit holder on the e-PoS machine which is placed at the fair price shop concerned, the involvement of the fair price shop dealer cannot be ruled out because if common biometric is used against different set of persons, then the fair price shop dealer or his agent would be the first to know that the person who is seeking the commodity is impersonating some other person.
Accordingly, we do not find a good ground to quash the first information report which, otherwise, also disclose commission of cognizable offence.
The petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to apply for bail or anticipatory bail, as may be advised.
Order Date :- 28.1.2020 AKShukla/-