Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2017
1
MCRC.6600/2016
Kamlesh Dhakad & Ors.
v.
State of M.P. & Ors.
24/04/2017
H.K.Shukla, counsel for the applicants.
Shri B.P.S.Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent no.1/State.
This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.134/2016 registered by Police Station Jamner, District Guna for offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that Sewa Sahkari Samittee, Barsat is running Government fair price shops at Barsat and Patan, Todra. On 12/05/2016, the physical inspection of the fair price shop Barsat was carried out at 10:40 in the morning and it was found that 57.44 quintols of rice was short. At about 12:50 in the afternoon, on 12/05/2016 itself, a physical inspection of fair price shop, Todra which is run by the Sewa Sahakari Samittee, was carried out and the salesman Kamlesh Dhakad was called who informed that the stock register of the month of April and May have not been prepared and the old stock register of March, 2016 is deposited in the Cooperative Department. During the inspection, the salesman Kamlesh Dhakad produced the bills of the food grain received in the month of May. It was found that 55.52 quintols of rice was supplied by the transporter as per the bill available in the fair price shop. The physical verification of the stock was conducted. It was found that 55.52 quintols of rice was short. Similarly, on the same 2 MCRC.6600/2016 date at about 3:30 in the afternoon, the fair price shop Patan which is run by the Sewa Sahakari Samittee, Barsat was inspected. The salesman was found distributing the food grain. It was informed that 201.59 quintols of wheat, 47.78 quintols of rice, 9.29 quintols of sugar and 9.29 quintols of salt was not received in the shop whereas as per the bill issued in the month of May, the said food grain was supplied for the shop from the warehouse godown, Madhusudangarh. It was also found that by bill dated 07/05/2016, the said food grain was handed over to the S.K.Roadways (Transporter). Similarly, on 13/05/2016, the warehouse situated at Madhusudangarh was physically inspected and the stock was found in accordance with the stock register. Thus, it was found that the transporter had lifted the stock on 07/05/2016 from the Madhusudangarh warehouse. Therefore, it was alleged that on physical verification of the fair price shop, run by the Sewa Sahakari Samittee, Barsat, the wheat, rice, sugar and salt was not found. It was further mentioned that the salesman Hemraj Dhakad of fair price shop Barkat and salesman Kamlesh Dhakad of fair price shop Todra had given the receipt of rice to the transporter whereas that stock was not found in the fair price shop. Accordingly, it was alleged that the applicants as well as the transporters have not supplied the food grains and they have misappropriated the same. Accordingly, it was alleged that the act of the applicant and other co-accused persons is violative of Clause 11,12,13 of the Madhya Pradesh Distribution Scheme 3 MCRC.6600/2016 Control Order, 2015 and, thus, it is punishable under Section 3/7 of the essential Commodities Act.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that there is nothing on record to show that the food grains, which were alleged to have been misappropriated by the transporter, were ever supplied to the fair price shop and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants in any manner committed an offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the investigation is still pending and a large quantity of the food grain was not found in the fair price shops run by the Sewa Sahakari Samittee, Barsat. During investigation, it was found that the applicant no.1 Kamlesh Dhakad had given an acknowledgment of receipt of food grain to the transporter but the said food grain was not found in the stock which clearly shows that the rice has been misappropriated by the fair price shop run by Sewa Sahakari Samittee, Barsat. Therefore, it is clear that 55.52 quintols of rice has been misappropriated by the fair price shop, Todra which is run by the Sewa Sahakari Samittee, Barsat.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, the investigation is still pending and the charge-sheet has not been filed. The material which has been collected so far by the police clearly shows that an acknowledgment of receipt of 55.52 quintols of rice- raw-common was given by the salesman of fair price shop, Todra but the said food grain was not found in the 4 MCRC.6600/2016 shop. There is specific allegation to the effect that the food grain was supplied by the transporter to the concerning fair price shop and the same was not found. As the matter is still under investigation, then it would be premature to come to any conclusion. However, in view of the prima facie allegation with regard to the issuance of receipt of acknowledgment by the representative of the fair price shop, Todra clearly shows that 55.52 quintols of rice was supplied to the fair price shop by the transporter which was ultimately not found in the stock of the fair price shop, Todra. Thus, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no allegation against the applicant warranting registration of FIR.
The Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2014 2 SCC 1 has held that where the allegations made in the complaint prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence, then the police authorities are under obligation to register the FIR.
In the present case, there is a sufficient material available on record to show that the representative of the fair price shop, Todra had received the food grain and had accordingly issued the acknowledgment of receipt of 55.52 quintols of rice which was ultimately not found in the stock of the shop. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that there is nothing against the applicants warranting registration of FIR against them.
Before parting with this order, it would be appropriate to mention here that any observation made 5 MCRC.6600/2016 in the earlier part of the order is in the light of the limited scope of inference at the initial stage of the investigation. The Trial Court should not get prejudiced by any of the observation made by this Court while proceeding further with the trial.
With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
AKS Judge