Allahabad High Court
Nand Kishore Agarwal And Co. vs State Of U.P. on 24 April, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990CRILJ1885
ORDER Palok Basu, J.
1. Admittedly the accused applicant is facing trial under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been moved on the ground that Section 468, Cr. P.C. will be attracted to the facts of the case and, therefore, the trial will be barred by limitation.
2. Sri R. N. Bhalla, learned Counsel for the applicant drew the attention of the court to Section 12AA which was brought into statute book by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981. Section 11 of the said Act carves out Sections 12A and 12AA in the parent Act i.e. Essential Commodities Act. For ready reference relevant portion of Section 12AA may be quoted :
(a) to (d).....................
(e) a special court may, upon a perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial:
(f) all offences under this Act shall be tried in a summary way and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code shall, as far as may be apply to such trial:
Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the special court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
3. It was argued that the proviso to Clause (f) makes it incumbent that the special court cannot award sentence of imprisonment exceeding two years. The arguments was elaborated by saying that since the special Judge cannot impose a sentence more than two years RI, Section 468, Cr.P.C. in terms will be attracted.
4. Sri Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the state has, however, argued that Section 468, Cr.P.C. has no relevance. The special court is empowered to impose a lesser penalty than the parent section which imposes main penalty. He relied upon Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act which says that if any person contravenes any orders made under Section 3 he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years R.I.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant is misconceived. The chargesheet was admittedly received on 28-8-1988. The date of he incident alleged in the instant case is 27-4-1984 when the District Supply Officer lodged a First Information Report at police station kotwali Chandausi against the applicant for taking action against him under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The allegation was that the applicant had no licence to possess Khand-sari. The basis of the said allegation was that 120 quitals of khandsari had been kept by the applicant in the Central Warehousing Corporation Chandausi. It was thus inferred in the FIR that various clauses of the Sugar and Gur Dealer's Licensing Order, 1962 were contravened.
6. On the facts and circumstances, therefore, this case will be covered by the Clause 2 of Section 7 of the E.C. Act as the allegations are that the applicant was having more stock than he could possess individually as required under the law.
7. Section 468, Cr.P.C. says that no court shall take cognizance of offence after three years of the commission of the offence of the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. It follows that the Legislature has used the word 'punishable' in Clause 2(c) of Section 468, Cr.P.C. as in other clauses of the said section. The argument of the learned A.G.A. therefore, is correct whereby he has relied upon Section 7 of the Act in order to argue that the instant case will be punishable with 7 years R.I. Therefore, none of the Clauses (a) (b) and (c) of Section 468, Cr.P.C. will come to help the applicant.
8. Sri R. N. Bhalla, learned Counsel for the applicant then argued that the applicant had licence and the allegations of the District Supply Officer in the FIR saying that there was no such licence with the applicant is false. Needless to say that the applicant satisfied the trial Judge about the existence of the licence and brings necessary evidence in the trial, the said question will be dealt with and will be decided in accordance with law at the appropriate stage. So far as the present revision is concerned this has no force and it is hereby dismissed.
9. In view of the discussions made above this revision is dismissed and the interim order dated 4-5-1989 is vacated.
10. Notwithstanding the dismissal of this revision it will be open to the applicant to raise all questions of facts and law at the trial which may be decided in accordance with law at the appropriate stage.