Allowed

Rahul Kumar Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Dec 2022Cr.M.P./467/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated based on suspicion and preparation rather than an attempt to commit an offence. The High Court held that since no actual contravention of the Essential Commodities Act occurred and no IPC offences were alleged, the proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings, including the First Information Report (Seraikella P.S. Case No. 9 of 2022), were quashed.

Rahul Kumar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 467 of 2022

¶2

Rahul Kumar Prasad ..... … Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand. 2. District Manager, State Food Corporation, Jamshedpur. ..... … Opposite Parties

¶4

¶5

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶6

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P.

¶7

¶8

05/ 08.12.2022 Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

¶9

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report, i.e. Seraikella P.S. Case No. 9 of 2022, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 407, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Seraikella.

¶10

The FIR was lodged on the information given by the informant in which, it has been alleged that they got information through mobile number that two vehicles bearing registration No. JH-01-AK-2224 and JH-05-AQ-3256 loaded with rice which was issued from Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), Gamharia to SFC Potka, but the same is going towards Seraikella for the purpose of black marketing. In the light of the above mentioned information, SDO Seraikella directed the BDO Gamharia and other officers to hold the above vehicle and act accordingly. Accordingly, the vehicle was seized on 22.01.2022 itself near a petrol pump and handed over to the Officer-in-Charge, Seraikella since the vehicle was found present in a diverted route, as such, it was suspected that intention of the driver or the transporter was not correct. It is further alleged that there was violation of Rule 25(1)(Ka) of Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2019 (Chapter V).

¶11

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered, genuine and competent transporter of food grains. He submits that the work was allotted to the petitioner under a valid agreement i.e. for two years and the agreement was executed on 22^nd July, 2020. He further submits that from the FIR, it is quite clear that only upon suspicion and intention / preparation, the present case has been instituted, however, no cognizable

¶12

-2-

¶13

offence is made out against him. He further submits that only the allegation is diverting the route of the vehicle within one or two hour in the same district, however, the vehicle along with loaded articles has been seized only on the ground of diversion of route of the vehicle. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Malikat Singh & Anr. Versus The State of Punjab, reported in (1969) 1 SCC 157 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-6 and 7 held as follows:-

¶14

“6. The question to be considered in this appeal is whether upon the facts found by the lower courts any offence has been committed by the appellants. It is not disputed that the truck carrying the paddy was stopped at Samalkha Barrier which is 32 miles from Delhi. It is also not disputed that the Delhi-Punjab boundary was, at the relevant point of time, at about the 18th mile from Delhi. It is therefore evident that there has been no export of paddy outside the State of Punjab in this case. The truck with the loaded paddy was seized at Samalkha well inside the Punjab boundary. It follows therefore that there was no export of paddy within the meaning of Para 2(a) of the Punjab Paddy (Export Control) Order, 1959. It was however argued on behalf of the respondent that there was an attempt on the part of the appellants to transport paddy to Delhi, 'and so there was an attempt to commit the offence of export. In our opinion, there is no substance in this argument. On the facts found, there was no attempt on the part of the appellants to commit the offence of export. It was merely a preparation on the part of the appellants and as a matter of law a preparation for committing an offence is different from attempt to commit it. The preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence. On the other hand, an attempt to commit the offence is a direct movement towards the commission after preparations are made. In order that a person may be convicted of an attempt to commit 'a crime, he must be shown first to have had an intention to commit the offence, and secondly to have done an act which constitutes the actus reus of a criminal attempt. The sufficiency of the actus reus is a question of law which had led to difficulty because of the necessity of distinguishing between acts which are merely preparatory to the commission

¶15

-3-

¶16

of a crime, and those which are sufficiently proximate to it to amount to an attempt to commit it. If a man buys a box of matches, he cannot be convicted of attempted ,arson, however clearly it may be proved that he intended to set fire to a haystack at the time of the purchase. Nor can he be convicted of this offence if he approaches the stack with the matches in his pocket, but, if he bends down near the stack and lights a match which he extinguishes on perceiving that he is being watched, he may be guilty of an attempt to burn it. Sir James Stephen, in his Digest of Criminal Law, art. 50, defines an attempt as follows:

¶17

"'an act done with intent to commit that crime, and forming part of a series of acts which would constitute its actual commission if it were not interrupted. The point at which such a series of acts begins cannot be defined, but depends upon the circumstances of each particular case."

¶18

7. The test for determining whether the act of the appellants constituted an attempt or preparation is whether the overt acts already done are such that if the offender changes his mind and does not proceed further in its progress, the acts already done would be completely harmless. In the present case it is quite possible that the appellants may have been warned that they had no licence to carry the paddy and they may have changed their mind at any place between Samalkha Barrier and the Delhi-Punjab boundary and not have proceeded further in their journey. Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act states that "any person who attempts to contravene, or abets a contravention of, any order made under section 3 shall be deemed to have contravened that order". But there is no provision in the Act which makes a preparation to commit an offence punishable. It follows therefore that the appellants should not have been convicted under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.”

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that identical was the issue before this Court in the cases of Bibhuti Bhushan Ram Versus The State of Jharkhand , in Cr.M.P. No. 68 of 2012 and Staya Narayan Versus State of Jharkhand , in Cr.M.P. No. 2042 of 2012 , which were allowed by terms of orders dated 05.11.2012

¶20

-4-

¶21

and 08.07.2013 respectively.

¶22

Learned Spl.P.P., appearing for the State submits that the FIR has been registered correctly and there is no illegality in the same and only on this ground, the FIR cannot be quashed.

¶23

In view of the above and considering the submissions of the parties, it appears that only for diversion of the route and on the ground of preparation of crime, however, the crime has not taken place, the case has been lodged. Thus, it cannot be said that an attempt was being made to commit offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, but since it has never been the case of the prosecution that provision of any order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been contravened or violated, once cannot be held to be guilty for making attempt to commit offence, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Moreover, there has been absolutely no allegation either of committing offence of forgery, misappropriation or cheating and there is also no allegation that rice, which was being transported was stolen property.

¶24

In that view of the matter, the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted.

¶25

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report i.e. Seraikella P.S. Case No. 9 of 2022, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 407, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Seraikella, are hereby, quashed.

¶26

This petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶27

Interim order, granted earlier, stands vacated.

¶28

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶29

Amitesh/-

Rahul Kumar Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Naresh Lal Rajak Vs the Union of India through CBI

Md Azad And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Suman Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Kumar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Kumar Sinha Alias Binod Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through C B I