Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nayab Dastdgir vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2020
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-38962-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-38962-2019
(NAYAB DASTDGIR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
22
Jabalpur, Dated : 16-10-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Saurabh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Brijendra Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.854/2019 registered at Police Station-Jhangirabad, District-Bhopal, for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.
A s per prosecution case, on 19.07.2019, complainant-S.K. Sharma, Agriculture Development Officer, Block Fanda, District-Bhopal has submitted an application in Police Station-Jahagirabad requesting to register the F.I.R against the Director of Vindhya Agro Care i.e. present applicant for violating the provisions of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. It is mentioned in the complaint that on 30.06.2018, he took a sample of paddy from aforesaid firm and sent to laboratory, situated at Indore for examination, in which sample is found substandard. Therefore, police has registered the FIR against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1955').
On reply to the query dated 01.10.2019, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the provision of Section 10-A of Act 1955 the offences under E.C. Act are bailable in nature. He further submits that even if the assessment of offences of being bailable or non-bailable be made through Part II of Schedule I of Cr.P.C., the alleged contravention would come under the purview of Section 19 of Seeds Act, 1966 and punishable with maximum punishment of fine of Rs.500/-only and thus, it would be 2 MCRC-38962-2019 treated as bailable offence as per Part II of Schedule I of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant is not manufacturer of seeds and was only running sales center thereof, thus, he is protected under Rule 7 of Seeds Rules, 1968. Apart from the above, he submits that the offence is triable by JMFC. Applicant has no criminal record. With the aforesaid, he has prays for allowing this anticipatory bail application.
Per-contra, learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposes the anticipatory bail application.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the applicant raised the ground that the offence levelled against the applicant is bailable in nature pointing out the provision of Section 10-A of E.C. Act, 1955 as well as Section 19 of Seeds Act, 1966. On perusal of case diary, it appears that allegation against the applicant is that he breached the provisions of Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. The Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 is enacted in exercise of power conferred by Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 13 thereof provides the provision of inspection and punishment. As per prosecution, the sample taken from the shop of applicant is found substandard and in this regard Section 13 (1) (c) provides the provision about to ensure that sample conforms to standard of quality claimed in accordance with the procedure laid down in schedule to a laboratory notified under the Seeds Act, 1966. If any contravention is found, same is punishable under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act. Therefore, the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 is an enactment under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and it only borrows procedure from Seeds Act, 1966 to ensure the standard of sample.
Further, Section 7 of E.C. Act provides the penalties, if any person contravenes any order made under Section 3. Section 3 of the E.C. Act deals with the powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc. of essential commodities whereas penalty for contravention of any order made under 3 MCRC-38962-2019 Section 3 is provided under Section 7.
Further, Section 10-A speaks about the offence being cognizable. Section 10-A was inserted in the Act by the Second Amendment Act, 1967 in which every offence under this Act was made "cognizable" and "bailable". Subsequently by the Amendment Act, 1974 (30 of 1974) the word "bailable" was omitted. In the year 1981, an Amendment Act was passed to amend certain provisions and the offences were made non-bailable by amending the Section 10-A of the E.C. Act . In the first instance, it was made for 5 years, then extended to 10 years and again by the Ordinance, same was extended to 15 years. Thereafter, no further amendment was passed to extend the period beyond 15 years and now it stand ceased to have effect after the expiry of 15 years in view of the provision of Section 1 (iii) of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 and therefore Section 10-A is remained in effect under the Act 30 of 1974.
When the Special Act (Essential Commodities Act) is silent regarding offences being bailable or non-bailable, in such situation, Part-II of Schedule- I under Cr.P.C. 1973 comes into play. The said schedule speaks about the classification of offences against other laws and according to it if the offences punishable is with imprisonment for three years, and upwards but not more than seven years, then the same would be treated as cognizable and non- bailable. Prima faice, the alleged act of the applicant would come under the purview of Section-7(1)(a)(ii) wherein the punishment is of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and person shall also be liable to fine. Since, alleged act having punishment of maximum seven years as per Section-7(1)(a)(ii), therefore, same would be considered as non-bailable offence and this anticipatory bail application is maintainable. This Court has expressed its acceptance with the findings of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mayank Jain Vs. State of MP passed in M.Cr.C. No. 13601/2016 and Hariom Vs. State of MP reported in (2011) 1 MPLJ Cri. 267 4 MCRC-38962-2019 As far as merits of the case is concerned, prima facie it appears that applicant is license holder for selling seeds, produced by National Seeds Corporation, New Delhi. Allegation against the present applicant is that he was having substandard seeds for selling in his Sales Center. Since, prima facie, applicant does not seem like manufacturer of seeds and only incriminating thing found against him is that he is running business of selling seeds, produced by other firms. There is no allegation regarding mischief in stock, supply and distribution of such seeds. The applicant has also been released on ad-interim bail by order dated 01.10.2019 by this Court.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to allow the applicant's anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., so, the application is allowed and the ad- interim anticipatory bail is made absolute in terms of the order dated 01.10.2019.
M.Cr.C. stand disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2020.10.21 17:31:02 +05'30'