Rakesh Kumar and Others vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J.—Rakesh Kumar and others, who are partners in a firm M/s Om Parkash and Company, Khanna, have come to this Court in this petition u/s 482 Cr. P. C. and seek quashing of FIR No. 62 dated April 17, 1992 (Annexure P-3) registered at Police Station, Sadar, Abohar.

According to the allegations made in the impugned FIR, which was registered on the basis of a communication sent by District Food and Supplies Officer, Abohar, Camp at Sito Guno, it has been alleged that the complainant alongwith his staff was present at Sito Guno barrier, when four trucks belonging to the petitioners were checked and they were found to be carrying the following commodities : -

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. G.R. No. Dated Truck Qty. Weight Bill Dated No. No. of of No. Bags Wheat --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 12684 16.4.1992 PB 02 140 133-0 2192 16.4.1992 9982 2. 12682 " HR 26 150 142-50 2195 " 7967 3. 12682 " DLIG 144 136-80 2189 " 0176 4. 12686 " 5785/ 131 124-45 2185 " DEL ---------------------------------------------------------------------

That according to the instructions issued by the Punjab Government no licence holder of food-grains who is a wheat dealer can deal in purchase and sale of more than 250 quintals of wheat at one time. The petitioners had, thus committed a violation of the said instructions and provisions of Punjab Food-grain Licencing Order framed u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The brief submission made by Mr. Palli who appears for the petitioner is that there was no restriction on the right of the petitioners, who were dealers in Food-grains, from making purchase of any quantity of food-grains and in transporting it to another State and the only restriction placed by the Rules was hoarding of stock of more than 250 quintals of wheat.

Annexure P-l is a letter dated March 28,1985, which was issued by the Director, Food and Supplies to the District Food and Supplies Controllers. The contents, so far as relevant, reads as follows :-

"As per the letter under reference, a dealer is required to get the approval of the District Food and Supplies Controller before he can move wheat out of the State. This was done to prevent unauthorised movement of wheat. Since now vide notification dated 30.1.1985, stock limit on wheat for all categories of stockists have been removed and in view of the comfortable food grain position in the country it has been decided that henceforth there shall be no restriction of any kind whatsoever for the movement of wheat by the traders outside the State. The tractors are now free to move their wheat stocks without any permission/approval of the District Food & Supplies Controller."

Annexure P-4 is a copy of the circular darted February 11, 1992 and it recites that according to the instructions of Govt. of India, a limit for storing wheat and paddy has been fixed The limit has been fixed for the whole-sale and retail dealers as 250 quintals and 50 quintals respectively.

Annexure P-8 confirms that the restrictions imposed with respect to stock limits of wheat as per Annexure P-4 have been withdrawn.

In the return filed, it has been stated that the firm was in possession of excess quantity of the wheat. However, no copy of any instructions have been placed on record and the State has felt satisfied by saying that the case involves various govt. instructions issued by the Head of Department and only that department can throw better light in the case.

Annexure P-4 clearly speaks of the limit with respect to storing of wheat by a whole sale dealer and also by a retail dealer. It, however, does not place any limit on the right of a dealer to make purchase of any quantity at any given moment. Since there was no restrictions for movement of the wheat from the State and the wheat was found in the trucks moving for their destination, it could not be described to be storing of the wheat by the dealer. The District Food and Supplies Officer had obviously misread the Instructions and got a case registered without commission of any offence by the petitioners.

I hereby allow the petition and quash the FIR and the consequent proceedings. The counsel states that the wheat had been taken back by the petitioners under the orders of this Court by furnishing of security. That security shall stand discharged. The petition stands disposed of.