Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Under Essential Commodities Act for Lack of Order Under Section 3. FIR under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 quashed as no order under Section 3 was alleged to have been contravened.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 88
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicants, Dhanraj s/o Anandrao Mohod and Hemraj s/o Dhanraj Mohod, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972, seeking quashing of an FIR registered against them under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The FIR was based on a complaint that the applicants, who were fair price shop owners, had not been distributing food grains in accordance with law. The applicants argued that the FIR did not refer to any order made under Section 3 of the Act, which is a prerequisite for an offence under Section 7. The State opposed the application, contending that a prima facie case was made out. The court examined the FIR and found no reference to any order under Section 3. Relying on the Division Bench decision in Rakesh M. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, which followed the Supreme Court's judgment in Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi v. State of M.P., the court held that without an order under Section 3, no offence under Section 7 can be alleged. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR, holding that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act - Quashing of FIR - Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - The applicants sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on the ground that no order under Section 3 of the Act was alleged to have been contravened. The court held that unless there is an order made under Section 3 of the Act, no offence under Section 7 can be made out. Relying on Rakesh M. Jain v. State of Maharashtra and Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi v. State of M.P., the court quashed the FIR as continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. (Paras 2-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an FIR under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 can be sustained in the absence of any order made under Section 3 of the said Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the application and quashed the FIR registered against the applicants under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Law Points

  • Essential Commodities Act
  • 1955
  • Section 3
  • Section 7
  • FIR quashing
  • abuse of process
  • inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 140

Criminal Application (APL) No. 728 of 2015

2016-03-16

B. R. Gavai, A. S. Chandurkar

Shri R. M. Daga for applicants, Shri J. Y. Gurde APP for State

Dhanraj s/o Anandrao Mohod and Hemraj s/o Dhanraj Mohod

The State of Maharashtra and Tahsildar, Karanja

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR

Remedy Sought

Quashing of FIR registered under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

Filing Reason

Applicants alleged that FIR did not disclose any order under Section 3 of the Act, making the offence under Section 7 unsustainable

Previous Decisions

FIR was registered on 05/05/2015 based on a complaint; investigation carried out by Supply Officer; stock seized and samples forwarded

Issues

Whether an FIR under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 can be sustained in the absence of any order made under Section 3 of the said Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Applicants argued that FIR lacks reference to any order under Section 3, essential for offence under Section 7; relied on Rakesh M. Jain v. State of Maharashtra. State argued that prima facie case was made out and statements of ration card holders indicated non-distribution of food grains.

Ratio Decidendi

For an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, there must be a contravention of an order made under Section 3 of the Act. In the absence of any such order being alleged in the FIR, the proceedings are an abuse of process and liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

Unless there is any order made under Section 3 of the said Act that was alleged to have been contravened, there was no question of any offence under Section 7 of the said Act being made out.

Procedural History

FIR registered on 05/05/2015 under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Applicants filed Criminal Application (APL) No. 728 of 2015 under Section 482 CrPC for quashing. Heard on 16/03/2016 and allowed.

Acts & Sections

  • Essential Commodities Act, 1955: 3, 7
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972: 482
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Under Essential Commodities Act for Lack of Order Under Section 3. FIR under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 quashed as no order under Section 3 was alleged to have been contravened.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Revenue Appeal in Income Tax Case — Padma Vilas Palace Held to Be a Building Used as a Hotel. The Court ruled that the structure was a hotel building under Section 2(11) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus the assessee wa...