Dismissed

Manish Mehta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2023MCRCA/655/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected anticipatory bail applications filed by two shop officials under Section 438 CrPC in a purported Essential Commodities Act case, finding their prima facie involvement in pilferage of valued food grains justified rejection due to the gravity of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Both M.Cr.C.(A) petitions for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC were rejected and dismissed.

Manish Mehta Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Reserved on 25-07-2023 Pronounced on 10 - 08-2023

¶5

MCRCA No. 655 of 2023

¶6

Manish Mehta S/o Late A. P. Mehta Aged About 45 Years R/o Church Road Kedarpur Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gandhinagar, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

MCRCA No. 616 of 2023

¶12

Abhay Raj Singh S/o Late Bhanu Pratap Singh Aged About 50 Years Occupation - Agriculture, R/o Near Joda Pipal, Deviganj Ward, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil - Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Applicant

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station In-Charge, Police Station - Gandhinagar Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant

¶16

For Applicant : Shri Amarnath Pandey and Shri A.N. Pandey, Advocates

¶17

For State : Shri Lalit Jangde, Dy. Government Advocate with Shri Ravindra Soni, Food Inspector Surguja and Shri John Pradeep Lakra, T.I. Surguja

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas C.A.V. ORDER

¶19

Since an identical issue is involved in both the bail applications, they

¶20

are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this order.

¶21

The applicants have preferred the first bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 150/2023 registered at Gandhinagar District – Surguja (C.G.), for

¶22

¶23

offence punishable under Section 409, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶24

Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the Food Inspector, Ambikapur inspected the shop No. 391001026, Godhanpur Ward, Ambikapur for physical verification of the stock wherein it has been found that food grains to the tune of Rs. 27,81,866/- was short. The Shop is being run by Maa Bhawani Upbhokta Bhandar operated by President Dashrath Soni, Vice President – present applicant Abhay Raj Singh and Assistant Salesman – present applicant Manish Mehta. Further the case of the prosecution is that physical verification of the stocks as on 30.09.2022 was inspected wherein shortage of food grains i.e. Rice 744.75 quintal valued at Rs. 27,47,993/-, Sugar 6.53 qunital valued at Rs. 23,424/- and gram 1.97 quantal valued at Rs. 10,449/- total worth Rs. 27,81,866/- were found, as such a loss of Rs. 27,81,866/- has been caused to the Government by the applicants and the co-accused. A complaint was lodged on the said allegation by the Food Inspector, on the basis of which FIR for the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicants and the coaccused on 29.04.2023.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that as per the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 there is no provision to initiate Criminal Proceeding as there is provision of imposition of penalty and if any shortage is found, the same shall be recovered from the arrears as per Section 155 of the Land Revenue Code. They would further submit that the applicants cannot be held responsible for any pilferage, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Physical verification has not been done strictly in accordance with the Rules and also the

¶26

¶27

inspection has been done in the absence of the present applicants.

¶28

Learned counsel for the applicant – Manish Mehta would submit that the shop is operated by the present applicant but it is run by the President and Vice President of Maa Bhawani Upbhokta Bhandar, as such he cannot be held responsible for any pilferage. He would further submit that he is working as Assistant Salesman and is drawing monthly salary of only Rs. 5000/-, if he will be arrested then his family members will face financial hardship, as such, would pray for releasing him on anticipatory bail.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant – Abhay Raj Singh would submit that the record does not show that the pilferage has been done by the present applicant, without any foundation, the charges have been levelled against him, therefore, would pray for releasing him on anticipatory bail.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the bail applications would submit that as per Order 11(6) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, it is incumbent upon the fair price shop owner to sell commodities to the persons to whom Ration card has been issued and as per the order 11(11) it is incumbent upon the shop owner to follow the instructions and directions given by State Government, Food and Civil Supplies Department and the Collector, which have been violated. He would further submit that the penalty which has been provided in Clause 16 is civil in nature but there is no rider to conduct criminal proceeding, as it is violation of Sections 4 and 6 of the Essential Commodities Act. They have misappropriated the stock valued at Rs. 27,81,866/-, thus FIR has been rightly lodged against them. He would further submit that the physical verification was done in presence of the applicant –

¶31

¶32

Manish Mehta and his statement has also been recorded wherein he has stated that whatsoever shortage will be adjusted within one month, therefore, their anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶34

From bare perusal of the case diary and materials on record, it is clear that Show Cause Notice was issued to the president and vice president – present applicant Abhay Raj Singh which has been replied by them wherein they have stated that the applicant – Manish Mehta is responsible for any shortcoming. The applicant – Manish Mehta in his statement has admitted his responsibility and said that he is ready to deposit entire amount. Thus, considering the prima facie involvement of the applicants in the Crime in question, considering the gravity of the offence, looking to the quantity of the food grains which has been pilfered which were to be supplied to the persons below the poverty line under Food Security Act, I am not inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail.

¶35

Accordingly, both the M.Cr.C.(A) are rejected.

¶36

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶37

Deshmukh

Manish Mehta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Mehta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Krishna Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madhusudan Tulsyan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanju Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hitesh Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tilakram Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankesh Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh