Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shakir Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 October, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 1
MCRC 39080 of 2020
Shakir Khan vs. State of MP
Gwalior, Dated : 19/10/2020
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anoop Nigam, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State.
Heard finally through Video Conferencing Case diary is available.
This first application under Section 439 of CrPC has been filed for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 18/08/2020 in connection with Crime No.336/2020, registered at Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri for offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is bailable although the allegation against the applicant is of committing an offence which is punishable by seven years. It is further submitted that total 68 bags of rice was received, out of which 4 bags of rice was sold/distributed amongst the beneficiaries and 64 bags were found in the shop, therefore, the allegation that the applicant had illegally sold the rice in the open market, which was meant for Public Distribution System, is false. It is further submitted that in the light of Clause 16 of the M.P. PDS (Control) Orer, 2015, no offence is made out as the total quantity of rice, which was recovered from the shop of the co-accused is less than 10% of the monthly allotment.
Per contra, the application is opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted by Shri Nigam, that the Coordinate Bench of this Court by THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 MCRC 39080 of 2020 Shakir Khan vs. State of MP order dated 01/07/2020 passed in the case of Arun Bharti vs. State of MP [MCRC No.20337/2020] has held that the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is non-bailable.
So far as the contention in regard to distribution of rice to the beneficiaries is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the photo-copy of the stock register which has been filed along with the application, is not attested by any authority. The applicant has not shown the source of this document. It is submitted that none of page of the said stock register contain the signature of the person, who has prepared the same. It is further submitted that during the lock-down period, the rice which was meant for distribution among the beneficiaries under the Public Distribution System, was sold in the open market.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Bharti (supra) has held that if the offence is punishable for seven years, then the same would be non-bailable.
So far as the stock register is concerned, it is a photo-copy of the register of the Society. In spite of repeated questions, the applicant could not explain as to how the applicant could get unattested photo-copy of the said documents of the Society. Further, every page of the stock register does not contain the signature of the person, who has prepared the same. The bail application of co-accused Jeetu alias Neeraj has been rejected by this Court by order dated 25/09/2020 passed in MCRC No.33443/2020. THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3
MCRC 39080 of 2020 Shakir Khan vs. State of MP So far as the contention of the applicant, that since, the total quantity seized from the shop of the co-accused is less than 10% of the monthly allotment, therefore, no offence is made out is concerned, it is suffice to say, that the contention of the Counsel for the applicant is falacious and misconceived.
Clause 16(2) of M.P. PDS (Control) Order 2015, reads as under :
(2) In case of violation under clause 13 for quantity more than 10 percent of the monthly allocation or repetition of violation under the same clause, a person shall mandatorily be prosecuted under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
From the plain reading of aforesaid provision, it is clear that it speaks about mandatory prosecution and doesnot provide, that in case if the quantity is less than 10% of the monthly allocation, than no offence would be made out.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK 2020.10.20 10:44:33 +05'30' VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00'