Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rattan Lal And Ors vs The State Of Haryana on 6 February, 2013
Crl. Misc. No.M- 36293 of 2011 and
Crl. Misc. No. M- 10692 of 2012
----1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-36293 of 2011
Date of Decision: 06.02.2013
Rattan Lal and ors. ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana .... Respondent
2- Crl. Misc. No.M-10692 of 2012
Date of Decision: 06.02.2013
Rajender Prashad Goyal ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
Crl. Misc. No.M- 36293 of 2011 and
Crl. Misc. No. M- 10692 of 2012
----2--
Present:- Mr. R.S. Cheema,Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rajiv Trikha, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
--
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
The five petitioners, namely, Rattan Lal, Yogesh Sharma, Anil Kumar, Ravi Parkash Goyal and Rajender Prashad Goyal, in the two petitions before me, have applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.183 dated 08.10.2011 at Police Station Bilaspur, District Gurgaon, for an offence punishable under sections 420 and 120-B IPC, section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, sections 181 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1999( for short "the Act").
Before noticing the submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the case set up by the police against the petitioners may be briefly noticed. A police party headed by ASI Mahipal Singh was present at Toll Plaza, Bilaspur in connection with patrolling. There he received a secret information about four Crl. Misc. No.M- 36293 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No. M- 10692 of 2012
----3--
vehicles described as canters driven by Srikant, Todi Singh, Viney Pal and Kishan Pal to be carrying spurious cement for supplying the same at Gurgaon and Delhi. He was told that the cement is packed in bags of branded cement and spurious cement is manufactured by Ravi Parkash Goyal and Rajender Prashad Goyal. Ambush was consequently laid and the aforesaid four vehicles were signalled to stop. They were found carrying cement and drivers thereof were apprehended at the spot and the cement was recovered after separating samples thereof.
The petitioners before me are the alleged owners of the cement works preparing the spurious cement and the owners of the aforesaid vehicles.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the offence under section 420 IPC is not made out because there was no customer available who could have been deceived by representing to him that the cement carried in the canters was genuine cement and from whom price of the genuine cement could be taken. According to him, offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act , 1955 would also not stand committed in this case because by way of order dated 26.06.1992 published in the Haryana Government Gaz. of the same date, the Haryana Cement Crl. Misc. No.M- 36293 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No. M- 10692 of 2012
----4--
(Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 issued vide notification dated 15.02.1973 has been rescinded. According to him, no other order has come in its place and, therefore, offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act would not stand committed in this case.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that coming to the offence under the Act, it would have to be noticed that under section 115 of the said Act, the investigation of an offence under the Act has to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. According to him, the investigation in this case is conducted by an ASI. According to him, Anil Kumar, the petitioner is not even named in the FIR. He has further submitted that Rattan Lal and Yogesh Sharma, the petitioners are only the owners of the canters, which were employed to carry the cement. He has further submitted that all the petitioners have joined the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required for any purpose.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has stressed the seriousness of the matter by saying that against Rajender Prashad Goyal there are nine cases of similar nature.
Despite being specifically asked, learned State counsel could not reply the submissions made by learned senior counsel for Crl. Misc. No.M- 36293 of 2011 and Crl. Misc. No. M- 10692 of 2012
----5--
the petitioners. He could not bring to my notice any cement control order having been issued thereafter on violation of which the petitioners could be said to have committed the offence punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Admittedly the investigation of the case in hand is carried out by an ASI and not by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as is required by the provisions of the Act.
In this view of the matter, and without commenting on the merits of the case, I find the petitioners to be entitled to pre- arrest bail. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed. The orders dated 14.12.2011 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M- 36293 of 2011 and dated 19.04.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-10692 of 2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners are made absolute.
February 06, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE