Delhi District Court
(2) Manoj Singhal vs State ( N.C.T Of Delhi) on 17 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJEEV BANSAL,
ASJ-03 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
Criminal Revision No. 36/12
(Unique I.D. No.02406R0241382012)
(1) Het Ram Goyal
S/o Sh. Mai Chand
R/o B-1/31, Sector-11,
Rohini, New Delhi.
(2) Manoj Singhal
S/o Late Sh. Ram Pratap Singhal
R/o B-5/4, Mayur Apartment,
Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi. ...........Revisionists
Versus
State ( N.C.T of Delhi) ...........Respondent
Date of Institution : 27.09.2012
Date of Pronouncement Order :17.09.2013
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 16.4.2012 by which the Ld. Trial Court passed an order to frame charge against the Revisionists u/s 420/468/471/285/120B IPC and section 3/7/10/55 of the Essential Commodities Act. Subsequently, charge was C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 1 /15 framed against the Revisionists on 4.8.2012 for these offences. Thus aggrieved, the present Revision has been filed.
2. Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate argued on behalf of the Revisionist No. 1 while Sh. Anil Goyal Advocate argued on behalf of Revisionist No. 2.
3. It was argued that FIR in the present case was registered after police conducted a raid at 9.15 pm on 4.12.2010 near a drain behind Rose Garden, Asola on an information received in police station that spurious LDO is being made by mixing Rubber Processing Oil and other chemicals. Ld. Counsel stated that SI Karamvir Singh alongwith other police officials conducted the raid and seized various tankers and other items from the spot, on 5.12.2010, without informing the officials of Food & Supplies Department or of Oil Companies. It was further stated that officers of Food and Supplies department seized the stock and tankers found at the spot on C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 2 /15 5.12.2010 at 2.30 pm. It has been stated that as per Clause 9 of Kerosene (Restriction on use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order 1993 the power to enter, search and seizure is conferred only on the officers of the rank of Inspector and above of Food & Supplies Department and any such act done by police, would be illegal and not merely irregular and the entire proceedings conducted thus become vitiated and consequently no charge for violation of provisions of the Essential Commodities Act can be framed against the Revisionists.
4. It has further been argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused Het Ram Goyal, that according to charge sheet Ram Mehar (who has not challenged the order of charge) is Prop. of Balaji Enterprises. It is stated that according to prosecution Het Ram Goyal got installed CCTV cameras at the premises in question and this act by itself does not constitute any offence. It is stated that only because the accused Het Ram Goyal used to have telephonic conversation with Ram Mehar, who was owner of the said C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 3 /15 premises, no offence has been committed by him. According to the Ld. Counsel, accused Het Ram Goyal also did not forge any document and as such no offence u/s 420/468/471/120-B IPC is made out as there is no material on record to sustain such a charge against the Revisionists. Similarly there is no material on record to justify charge u/s 285 IPC against the Revisionists as there is no expert evidence that the wires at the spot were live or were lying in dangerous condition.
5. Sh. Anil Goyal, Ld. counsel for Revisionist Manoj Kumar Singhal adopted the arguments led on behalf of other Revisionist. He also argued that Mukesh, brother of the Revisionist is stated to be the Prop. of M/s. Arpit Enterprises and the Revisionist was Manager in the said concern. Revisionist stood surety of Balaji Enterprises before the Income Tax Department. Being Manager of Arpit Enterprises or being surety of Balaji enterprises is no offence in itself. According to prosecution, some letters were exchanged between Balaji Enterprises and Godrej C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 4 /15 company for purchase of Rubber Processing Oil, which is not a controlled article, but that has nothing to do with the complicity of the accused Mukesh Singhal.
6. Both the counsels thus prayed for setting aside the order of Charge and discharge of the Revisionists.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP supported the impugned Order. It has been stated that pursuant to receipt of information by the police regarding oil mixing, raid was conducted by SI Karamvir alongwith other police personnel and various oil tankers were found at the spot, although, no person was found there. It is stated that thereafter SI Karamvir Singh informed Food and Supply Department and a team from the said department reached the spot and seized the material including tankers found at the spot. It has been stated that since the Food and Supply Department also joined the investigation, there is no illegality in the act of seizure as the seizure memo contains signature of the officials of Food & Supply C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 5 /15 Department as well. Further, it has been stated that the plot in question is owned by Ram Mehar of M/s Balaji Enterprises and on his arrest, he made disclosure regarding involvement of other persons. During investigation, names of the revisionists also surfaced. During investigation, entire original file of M/s Balaji Enterprises, was seized by Inspector Ishwar Singh from Department of Trade and Taxes and it was revealed that M/s Arpit Enterprises was its surety. This Arpit Enterprises belongs to brother of revisionist Manoj Singhal. Similarly, account details of M/s Balaji Enterprises revealed introduction of this company by M/s Dhan Laxmi Enterprises, which is owned by a close relative of revisionist Manoj Singhal. Manoj Kumar Singhal was arrested, who confessed his guilt in collusion with Het Ram Goel and Ram Mehar, for running illegal trade of oil mixing for preparing Light Diesel Oil (LDO). Police also seized consignment notes, in which Godrej Industries was consignor and Balaji Enterprises was consignee. Het Ram also booked CCTV Cameras for being installed at the said plot to watch the movements C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 6 /15 outside the plots and had also paid Rs. 10,000/- to M/s Accurate Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Rohini, for this purpose. As such, Het Ram Goel was also arrested and scrutiny of Call Detail Records of his phone 9810416882 showed that he and other accused persons were in constant touch with each other. He argued that all the accused persons had conspired together in this case.
8. I have heard both the sides and have perused the records of the case including the Trial Court Record, which was summoned.
9. So far as charge under the Essential Commodities Act is concerned, the objection raised on behalf of the revisionists is legal in nature. The accused persons are stated to have been indulging in making spurious LDO at the premises in question. The said premises belongs to Ram Mehar. According to Clause 9 of Kerosene (Restrictions on use and fixation of ceiling Price) Order 1993, the power to enter, search and seize any product C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 7 /15 which is a controlled item, is conferred upon an officer of the rank of Inspector and above of the Food & Supply Department. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment of Atul Garg vs. State of Punjab 2011 (1) CCC 16, Raj Kumar Gupta vs. State, reported in 1994 JCC 466 and the judgment in Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana 1997 (3) CCC 478. Law laid down in these pronouncements is hardly disputed. However, on the facts of the present case, the cited case law does not apply. In the present case, the seizure memo prepared by SI Karamveer of Delhi Police, also bears the signatures of one Mr. Amitabh, Inspector Enforcement. This seizure Memo is dt. 5.2.2010 and is available at Page 24 and 25 of the trial court record. On pages 28, 29 and 30 of the Trial Court record, seizure memo independently prepared by officials of Food & Supply Department is available. Therefore, it is not a case where competent/authorised persons from Food & Supply Department have not been associated at all in the seizure. Had it been a case that the police had not associated/informed the officials of Food & C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 8 /15 Supplies Department at all, it would have been different but the fact that the officials from Food & Supplies Department were associated, there is no illegality in the action of the prosecution. The law laid down in Atul Garg's case, would not apply as in the said case only police had seized the kerosene without involving Food & Supplies officials at all, and in these circumstances the proceedings were held to be vitiated. However, as noted above, in the present case Food & Supplies officials had joined the proceedings and thus the case is hand is distinguishable on facts.
10. Similar is the position of law in the case of Raj Kumar Gupta (supra) where the issue was whether the Inspectors, who had conducted the search, had specific authority for this purpose as according to the relevant Control Order, only the Commissioner or an Officer authorized by him in writing, could have made search. This being the position of law, the Hon'ble High Court concluded that the entire proceedings were vitiated as the C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 9 /15 Inspectors conducting the search could not produce any written authority, and in these circumstances, Hon'ble High Court held their action of search to be bad in law. However, in the present case, it is not that the Inspectors of the Food & Supplies Department had no authority to seize nor is it the case of the Revisionists that the Inspectors had no such authority. Their grievance is that the local police had first searched the premises and hence the subsequent seizure by Food & Supplies officials was illegal but such situation was not before the Hon'ble High Court in the case cited by the accused persons.
11. In Suresh Kumar's case, police had seized a truck carrying LPG, a controlled item, which under the relevant Control Order could have been done by Inspector of Food & Supplies and since Food & Supplies Inspector had not conducted the seizure, it was found to be anomalous, the charge was quashed. Again, the judgment is distinguishable on facts and hence does not apply. C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 10 /15
12. There is no such judgment cited by the revisionists that if police first enters the premises and officials of Food & Supplies enter thereafter and prepare the seizure memo alongwith Sub Inspector of local police, still the proceedings of seizure would be vitiated. The provision of authorising the officers of Food & Supply department in search and seizure in cases of Essential Commodities Act is to rule out the possibility of false implication. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that even when seizure is made by Officers of Food & Supplies Department alongwith police sub-inspector, still it would be unlawful. It is not disputed that the seizure memo bears signatures of Sub Inspector of local police and Food & Supplies Inspector. In the absence of any such law that local police and Food & Supplies Inspector cannot jointly conduct the seizure, no fault can be found in the said seizure memo and the procedure adopted. The objection raised by the revisionists in this regard is thus liable to be rejected. There is thus no infirmity in charging the accused persons for the offences u/s 3/7 of the Essential C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 11 /15 Commodities Act 1955.
13. So far as framing of charge against the accused persons under different provisions of IPC is concerned, there is no infirmity in that too. The charge has been framed by the Trial Court against the accused persons under Section 420/468/471/120B/285 IPC. According to prosecution, co-accused Ram Mehar owned a proprietorship concern M/s Balaji Enterprises used to manufacture spurious LDO. Ram Mehar was arrested first. Original file of M/s. Balaji enterprises was collected from Department of Trade & Taxes which revealed that M/s. Arpit Enterprises was its local surety. This Arpit Enterprises belonged to Mukesh Singhal, brother of Manoj Singhal - who was Manager of Arpit Enterprises. Balaji Enterprises had bank account with Lakshmi Vilas Bank and Dhan Lakshmi Enterprises was the introducer. This Dhan Lakshmi Enterprises is owned by Suresh Jindal who is brother in law of Manoj Singhal. So Manoj Singhal was arrested who disclosed about the role of Ram Mehar and C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 12 /15 Het Ram Goyal. Manoj Singhal's office was searched in which consignment notes were recovered in which Godrej Industries was consignor and Balaji Industries was consignee. CCTV Cameras were got installed at the premises in question by Het Ram Goel. Call Detail Records of his mobile phone revealed that he was in constant touch with other accused persons. Ram Mehar had also submitted a certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant Anil Sharma (Page 266 of the Trial Court) at the time of opening of bank account. However, this certificate was found to be fabricated as no such firm was found to be existing. The revisionists have been charged by the Ld. Trial Court for the offences u/s 420/468 and 471 IPC with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. When the prosecution has pressed into service the provisions of Section 120-B IPC which relates to criminal conspiracy, the entire series of acts of the accused persons are to be seen, without looking at any single act in isolated manner. If the entire circumstances and the material available on record is looked at, a prima facie charge u/s C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 13 /15 420/468/471/120-B IPC is made out against both the revisionists and no fault can be found in the impugned Order on this count too.
14. Next argument was with respect to charge u/s 285 IPC. There is material on record which show that loose wires were found at the spot attached to the pumps. There are photographs on the trial court record which clearly show that wires are lying in open without being properly fastened either to wall or to ground and ipso facto they appear to be dangerous. Huge quantities of Kerosene Oil, black oil, diesel and Rubber Processed Oil was recovered from the spot. Any sparking in the electrical wires would have led to an inferno which could not have been controlled, keeping into consideration that combustible material of about 2.27 lakhs litre was found at the spot. Charge u/s 285 IPC is thus justified.
15. The law regarding framing of charge is well settled that Court is not required to sift and weigh the material on C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 14 /15 record in the same manner, in which it is done at the conclusion of trial to decide the complicity of the accused for the purpose of his conviction or acquittal. Law is also settled that for conviction, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, but for the purpose of charge, the onus on the prosecution is not that stringent. It is well settled that in case, the court has grave suspicion that the accused has committed the offence, it would be justified in framing the charge against the accused.
16. In the net result, there is no merit in the Revision, which is hereby dismissed.
17. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith a copy of this order.
18. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court. (Rajeev Bansal) Dated:17.09.2013. ASJ-3/South District Saket Courts, New Delhi C.R. No. 36/12 Het Ram Goyal & Ors. vs. State 15 /15