High Court of Bombay

Shri Vijay Machindra Markad And Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

MANU/MH/0337/2017

08.03.2017

Civil

For attracting the provisions of offence punishable Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act,1955/Act the order under Section 3 of Act is essential.

By way of filing these applications, Applicants have prayed to quash and set aside respective first information reports, registered against them for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act,1955/Act. Informant Naib Tahasildar alleged that, 3 licensees of the fair price shop of village Banwas, have not distributed the food grains to the card holders in September 2015 and committed misappropriation. It is the case of Applicant that, he has no nexus with the alleged offence.

Admittedly, in all cases, there is no mention of contravention of any order made under Section 3 of Act, and therefore, in absence of any order made under Section 3 of which the contravention is claimed, the offence under Section 7 could not be made out. Supreme Court in case of Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi has taken a view that for attracting provisions of offence punishable Section 7 of said Act, order under Section 3 of said Act is essential. Division Bench of Bombay High Court at Nagpur in cases of Rakesh Mahendrakumar Jain and Dhanraj Anandrao Mohod has also taken a view that, for bringing an application under Section 7 of the said Act, it is necessary to make reference in first information reports to any order having been made under Section 3 of Act being violated. In absence of it being shown that there was any order made under Section 3 that had been contravened, proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 7 would not be tenable and continuation of such proceedings, therefore, would amount to abuse of process of law.

In facts of the present cases also, there is no reference whatsoever in the first information reports to any order having made under Section 3 of the Act being violated and therefore, the proceedings for offence punishable under Section 7 would not be tenable. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings based upon the said first information reports would amount to abuse of process of law. In the circumstances, applications allowed.

Relevant

Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi V/s State of M.P., Rakesh S/o Mahendrakumar Jain V/s The State of Maharashtra, Dhanraj Anandrao Mohod and another V/s State of Maharashtra and another, Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

Tags : FIR Proceedings Quashing

Share :