Har Prakash and Co. Oil and Flour Mills and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

A. Banerji, A.C.J.

The Petitioners have come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the FIR dated 7-8-1984 relating to crime No. 191 of 1984 u/s 3/7 Essential Commodities Act P.S. Purani Basti district Basti (Annexure ''1'' to the writ petition) and the orders for sale of the mustard seeds passed by the Collector, Basti on 10-9-1984 and 26-9-1984 (Annexure ''3'' and ''4'' to the writ petition). There is further prayer for a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to prosecute the Petitioners u/s 3/7 Essential Commodities Act in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR lodged against the Petitioners and not to confiscate or sell the mustard seeds seized from the premises of the Petitioners.

The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The Petitioner''s Oil Mill is know as M/s. Har Prakash and Co. Oil and Flour Mill at Pandey Bazar, Purani Basti in the city of Basti for grinding mustard seeds to produce mustard oil. The Oil Mill is owned by M/s. Har Prakash and Co. which is a registered partnership firm. On the 7th August, 1984, the SDM Basti conducted an inspection of the Petitioner''s firm and made physical verification of the mustard seeds kept in the godown and also examined the stock register. The SDM sealed 227 bags of mustard seeds and gave them in the custody of one Paras Nath of Pandey Bazar. A First Information Report was lodged at about 4 p.m. on the same day at the police station against the Petitioners Har Prakash an d A run Kumar, Partners of the firm, u/s 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. The entry in the register of the firm mentioned 150 bags of mustard seeds in the stock, but in reality 227 bags of mustard seeds were found in the godown. These were ordered to be confiscated and sold subsequently.

The Petitioners pleaded that the entry in the register on 6-8-1984 showed 150 bags of mustard seeds, but on the next day i.e. 7th August, 1984 78 bags of mustard seeds had been purchased by the firm. Mandi fee was paid in respect of 78 bags of mustard seeds. These seeds had later on been put in expeller and was in the process of crushing and grinding at the time when the inspection was made.

It is not necessary to go into the question whether there were 150 bags or 227 bags of mustard seeds at the time of inspection. The factual statement is that there were 227 bags of mustard seeds, while the entry in the stock register was of 150 bags.

The principal question before us, as alleged by the learned Counsel, was that the actual offence for which the Petitioners were charged was under the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977. In other words the charge against the Petitioners was that they had not maintained the stock book in accordance with the aforesaid 1977 Order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners urged that their case was not covered under the aforesaid 1977 Order firstly, the Petitioners were neither wholesalers nor retailers, who were under obligation to exhibit the price list and stock. They were manufacturers or producers and were under no obligation to exhibit the price list or stock held by them. It was further urged that the mustard seeds held by them did not come within the entries in the schedule appended to 1977 Order. Entry No. 8 relate to other edible oils. The item for which the Petitioners had been charged is mustard seeds and not edible oils. After crushing in the expeller the product is mustard oil, which is one of the edible oils, but the offence charged is of possessing mustard seeds in excess quantity than were entered in the register and non-maintenance of the register in accordance with 1977 Order. The latter required only to exhibit the price list and stock in respect of any of the items mentioned in the Schedule. Since mustard seeds is not included in the Schedule, the question of committing any offence against the provisions of 1977 Order does not arise.

The learned Standing Counsel sought to justify the confiscation order on the ground that mustard seeds was an essential commodity within the meaning of Section 2 Sub-section (5) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Even if it was an essential commodity as defined in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, it would not justify the seizure or the passing of an order of confiscation in respect of mustard oil for the Petitioner has been charged under 1977 Order for not exhibiting price list and maintaining a proper register of the stock, but as seen above the Petitioners are producers and not as wholesalers nor retailers. Consequently, the impugned orders in the present case are without jurisdiction and must be quashed.

We are of the view that the FIR dated 7-8-1984 (Annexure ''1'' to the writ petition) as well as the orders of sale of mustard seeds passed by the Collector dated 10-9-84 and 26-9-1984 must both be quashed. We are further of the view that a writ of mandamus ought to be issued against the Respondents not to prosecute the Petitioners under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. We order accordingly.

We have seen the order dated 11-1-1985 passed by another Division Bench directing the release of the seized goods on furnishing security. In view of the above the Petitioners will now be entitled to the release of their security. We order accordingly.

We allow the writ petition and the Petitioners will be entitled to their costs.