Ashok Kumar and anr. vs State of Haryana

G.S. Chahal, J.

Ashok Kumar son of Chanan Ram and Ashok Kumar son of Mool Chand, Petitoiners1 and 2, respectively, have moved this criminal miscellaneous for quashing the FIR No. 210 dated 20789, under sections 7, 10 and 55, Essential Commodities Act, Police Station City Dabwali, District Sirsa and the charges framed on the basis thereof.

The impugned FIR was registered on the basis of a communication sent by the District Food and Supplies Controller, Sirsa to SSP stating therein that the petitioners were holding a licence to deal with food articles, No. HFGA978 for running the business under the name and style of M/s Jindal industries, Bhatinda Road, Mandi Dabwali. On checking their business it was found that they had committed irregularities of stocks in their possession. The report of inspection was attached with the FIR.

In the report attached with the FIR, there was a statement of Ashok Kumar Gupta, Manager of the firm to the effect that at the time of checking, no discrepancy was found with respect to the stocks of wheat and Taramira but there was discrepancy with respect to grams and Dal. There was a shortage of 84 quintals of grams and excess of 35 quintals of Dal. It, had been further recorded that the weights were recorded on the basis of estimate only. There statement was, however, not signed by Ashok Kumar, as he had refused to do so. The learned counsel urges that till actual weightment was carried out for which there could be no difficulty when the officers visited the premises of the firm, no offence could be held to have been made out.

In a criminal charge, there must be presence of guilty mind. A person, however. cannot be punished for a bona fide mistake and further the charge must be clear. It is conceded at the bar that the Dal is gram Dal. If the items are considered together and even if there is a rough estimate, there is only a discrepancy of 49 quintals. The Inspectors of the Department who visited the premises of the firm, did not perform their duty of carrying out the weighment and fixing exact discrepancy, if any. It was their duty to examine the record and find out as to at what stage, this discrepancy had crept in Sudarswhan Lal Gupta v. Delhi Admn., 1985(2) Recent CR 171 . Malik ShariefudDin, J, of the Delhi High Court, dealing with a case under the E I ssential Commodities Act, observed as follows :

"11. Mr. B.T. Singh may be correct but then the question that arises for consideration is as to whether bona fide errors per se unaccompanied by guilty mind can be made punishable. The answer to this is provided by a case, Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43. This was also a case under the Essential Commondies Act and the Supreme Court observed that the contravention in a case such as this must be intentional and that is the only protection from the harassment. There must be a guilty mind as an ingredient of offence. The aforesaid observation clearly rules out the punishment of bona fide mistakes "

I subscribe to the same view. Neither there Inspecting Officers had carried out a proper verification nor had they described that it was an intentional act done by the petitioners. No offence was, thus, made out. I hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings.