AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.P. Sharma, J.—Since the aforesaid bail applications are arising out of the Crime No. 56/ 2010, registered at police station Basantpur, Distt. Surguja for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B of the I.P.C. and 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
The applicants have filed these second bail applications u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 56/ 2010, registered at police station Basantpur, Distt. Surguja for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B of the I.P.C. and 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
These are the second bail applications filed on behalf of the applicants. First bail applications filed on behalf of the applicants have been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.9.2010 by a coordinate bench of this Court in M.Cr.C.(A) Nos. 671/2010, 672/2010, 674/ 2010 and 673/2010.
Learned counsel for the applicants submit that first bail applications have been dismissed as withdrawn and case has not been decided on merits. No other applications have been filed or decided by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel further submit that the applicants are millers and they have supplied rice at the instance of competent authority, they were required to supply rice containing percentage of broken rice not more than 25 %. As per case of the prosecution in random checking percentage of broken rice was found more than 25 % but same has not been analyzed by the authority of the Food Corporation of India which is sine qua non. The prosecution has not followed the procedure prescribed. In case of any deficiency in supply of rice as per circular issued by the authorities, the authorities were under obligation to take samples in the presence of the applicants and after sealing such samples they were required to send for analysis to the authority of the Food Corporation of India and after analysis report they were required to provide opportunity for replacing the rice so supplied by the rice containing permissible limit of broken rice but instead of following the procedure prescribed on the basis of random checking and analysis report of their departmental authority they have lodged the F.I.R. Learned counsel also submit the applicants are ready and willing to replace the rice which is not infirmity with the standard prescribed.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicants have supplied huge quantity of rice containing instead of not more than 25% broken rice, 30 to 32% of broken rice and caused substantial damage and loss to the Government Authority.
First bail applications filed on behalf of the applicants have been dismissed as withdrawn by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the submission of learned counsel for the applicants which reads as follows:
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the application at this stage with liberty to revive at appropriate stage.
In the present case, the authorities have not taken any action for correcting the act committed by the present applicants as per guidelines and circular but on the ground that the present applicants by supplying rice containing more than 25% of broken rice cheated the authorities. Criminal offence has been registered against the present applicants. First bail applications filed on behalf of the applicants have been dismissed as withdrawn but at the time of withdrawal of such applications the Court was not inclined to grant bait and the present applicants have refused to enlarge themselves on bail. Factum of such withdrawal reveals that at the time of withdrawal of bail applications there is no chance for order granting bail in terms of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. After first order of dismissal of applications as withdrawn the present applicants have not shown any change in circumstances.
Material collected on behalf of the prosecution against the applicants relating to the aforesaid offence which is of serious in nature, I do not find any case for grant of bail to the applicants in the event of arrest. Accordingly, bail applications filed on behalf of the applicants u/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. are rejected