Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of West Bengal vs Anima Prosad Lepcha @ A.P.Lepcha on 25 February, 2015
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 992 OF 2011
STATE OF WEST BENGAL ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ANIMA PROSAD LEPCHA @ A.P.LEPCHA ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 15.02.2010 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in C.R.R. No. 1501 of 1998 quashing the further proceedings in Special Court Case No. 13 of 1998 pending before the learned Special Court Judge, Jalpaiguri, under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “E.C. Act”) is under challenge in this appeal, urging various legal grounds.
As could be seen from the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has quashed the proceedings pending before the learned Special Court Judge against Signature Not Verified the respondent where the case was registered against Digitally signed by Sushil Kumar Rakheja Date: 2015.02.26 16:40:30 IST Reason: him under the provisions of Section 3/7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act and Section 8 of the West Bengal 2 Anti-Profiteering Act, 1958 for the alleged shortage of 40,798 litres of kerosene. The Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies lodged a written complaint on 3.06.1998 with the Officer-in-Charge of Kotwali Police Station. The case was submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri and registered a Case bearing GRE No. 6/98 under the aforesaid provisions of the E.C. Act against the respondent. After registration of the FIR, the jurisdictional Police took up investigation into the case and raided the shop of the respondent. At the time of raid, the respondent was not present but his Manager was present at the shop. Police seized the documents relating to accounts and the stock of kerosene found at the shop of the respondent. Thereafter, the case was handed over by the local Police to the District Enforcement Branch (“DEB”), Jalpaiguri on 9.06.1998. After such transfer, the DEB took up the investigation and recorded the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” for short). At that stage, when the investigation by the DEB was under
progress, the respondent herein filed a revision petition before the High Court under Section 401 read with Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the proceedings 3 for the aforesaid alleged statutory offences punishable under Section 3/7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act, urging various legal contentions.
From the perusal of the FIR, the alleged offence falls under Section 3(2)(d) of the E.C. Act for which penalty is stipulated under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act, the imprisonment provided for is for a term which shall not be less than three months which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine. Therefore, Section 468 CrPC has no application at all to the fact situation. The learned High Court Judge without applying his mind to the allegations contained in the FIR has quashed the further investigation proceedings in exercise of his revisional and inherent jurisdiction by placing reliance upon Section 468 CrPC which provision of the CrPC has no application to the fact situation. On this ground alone, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside.
The contention urged on behalf of the respondent against whom the accusation is made under the aforesaid provisions of the E.C. Act is that from the date of the registration of the FIR, till the date of disposal of the Criminal Revision Petition by the High 4 Court, i.e. on 15.02.2010, nearly about 12 years are elapsed and stay was only for a period of eight weeks, thereafter, there was no impediment for the Investigating Officer to investigate and to take necessary steps and submit the final report. In not doing so, Section 173 CrPC will come in the way for the Investigating Officer to proceed further in the matter. He further submits that from the date of the registration of the FIR, as of now, it is more than 17 years, therefore, the question of further investigation of the case may not be feasible in the fact situation, particularly having regard to the fact that the High Court had exercised its inherent jurisdiction and quashed the proceedings. The said submission cannot be accepted by this Court as it is wholly untenable in law for the reason that the statutory offence alleged against the respondent with regard to the huge quantity of kerosene in the stock of the respondent is a serious statutory offence under the provisions of the E.C. Act which requires to be further investigated and steps shall be taken by the Investigating Officer. The learned single Judge of the High Court without applying his mind to the nature of allegations, has applied the provisions of Section 468 5 CrPC and erroneously quashed the further investigation proceedings against the respondent, which provision is totally inapplicable to the fact situation and quashing further proceedings suffers from an error in law and is illegal. On this ground itself, as we have already stated above, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order. The appeal is allowed and the Investigating Officer is directed to proceed further with the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
...........................J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) ..........................J. (C. NAGAPPAN) NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 25, 2015 6 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 992/2011 STATE OF WEST BENGAL Appellant(s) VERSUS ANIMA PROSAD LEPCHA @ A.P.LEPCHA Respondent(s) Date : 25/02/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Anip Sachthey,Adv.
Ms. Shagun Matta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Bijan Kumar Ghosh,Adv.
Mr. Ujjwal Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Sujoy Mondal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. The Investigating Officer is directed to proceed further with the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
(S. K. RAKHEJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)