AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.
By means of this petition moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C) the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 1 of 2006, State v. Soket, relating to offence punishable u/s 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station Manglore, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee.
The allegations in the first information report are that the District Supply Officer, on inspection, found that in the house of the accused/applicant two drums each containing 150 ltr. diesel, and two plastic canes each containing 50 ltr. kerosene oil, were found for which he had no licence.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that first information does not disclose which of the Control Order has been violated. Even in the charge sheet it is not mentioned as to which Control Order was violated by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and argued that it is only a Control Order issued u/s 3, is violated, the penalty u/s 7 is attracted. On the other hand, with the counter affidavit the State has filed copy of the U.P. Kerosene Control Order as Annexure-CA1 and pleaded that the offence punishable u/s 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is attracted, as the diesel and kerosene oil found in the house of the petitioner shows that the U.P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962 (applicable in the State of Uttarakhand) was violated.
Having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case.
Therefore, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed with the observation if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. It is further observed that the petitioner is at liberty to argue before the trial court at the time of framing of the charge, as to the consequence of non mentioning of Control Order in the first information report. Interim order dated 14.07.2006, stands automatically vacated.