Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sarvesh Kumar Shahi and Samiresh Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the initiation of proceedings against them pursuant to FIR No. 18 of 2018 registered at Kopri Police Station, Thane, for offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Motor Speed and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005, read with various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was based on a raid conducted on 1 March 2018, and subsequent raids on 14 April 2018. The petitioners contended that the investigation was conducted by an Assistant Commissioner of Police, who is not of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police as required under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and that no valid sanction for prosecution was obtained. The State argued that the investigation was valid and that the raids were interconnected. The court, after hearing arguments, noted that the Assistant Commissioner of Police is not of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and therefore the investigation was not conducted by a competent officer as mandated by Section 6A of the Act. The court also observed that no sanction under Section 6A was obtained. Consequently, the court held that the initiation of proceedings was invalid and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings. The court emphasized that the requirement of investigation by a senior officer and sanction are mandatory under the Essential Commodities Act, and non-compliance renders the proceedings unsustainable.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Essential Commodities Act - Investigation - Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Validity of Investigation - The court considered whether investigation by an Assistant Commissioner of Police, who is not of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, is valid under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The court held that the investigation must be conducted by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above, and since the Assistant Commissioner of Police is not of that rank, the investigation is invalid. Consequently, the FIR and all proceedings based on such investigation are quashed. (Paras 2-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Essential Commodities Act - Sanction - Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Requirement of Sanction - The court examined whether sanction under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is mandatory for prosecution. The court held that sanction is a prerequisite for taking cognizance of offences under the Act, and in the absence of valid sanction, the proceedings are not maintainable. (Paras 2-5) C) Criminal Procedure - Essential Commodities Act - Quashing of FIR - Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC - The court, exercising its inherent powers, quashed the FIR No. 18 of 2018 and all consequential proceedings, as the investigation was conducted by an officer not authorized under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and no valid sanction was obtained. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the initiation of investigation by an Assistant Commissioner of Police (who is not of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police) under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is valid, and whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings can be sustained without proper sanction under Section 6A of the Act.
Final Decision
The court quashed FIR No. 18 of 2018 and all consequential proceedings, holding that the investigation by Assistant Commissioner of Police was invalid as he is not of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and no sanction under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was obtained.
Law Points
- Essential Commodities Act
- 1955
- Section 6A requires investigation by officer of rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above
- Investigation by Assistant Commissioner of Police invalid
- Sanction for prosecution under Section 6A mandatory
- FIR quashed for lack of valid investigation and sanction
