Allowed

N.P.Kuttikrishnan Nair v. the District Collector,Alappuzha and Anr.

Kerala HC8 Mar 2010Crl.MC/1463/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous proceedings, the High Court of Kerala examined allegations of violating the Essential Commodities Act and LPG Regulation Order due to temporary storage of gas cylinders. The court concluded that since cylinders were kept for transit to consumers, there was no violation of the regulatory order or substantive offence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal No.807/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara is quashed.

N.P.Kuttikrishnan Nair Vs the District Collector,Alappuzha… — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1463 of 2008()

¶6

------------------------------------CC.807/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MAVELIKKARA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

---------------------------------

¶9

N.P. KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, CORAL GAS AGENCIES, LPG DISTRIBUTOR, MAVELIKKARA.

¶10

BY MR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.M.CHANDRA BOSE, MR.A.RAJASIMHAN.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶19

CRL.M.C.NO.1463 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 8^th March 2010

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner is the accused in

¶22

C.C.807/2007 on the file of Judicial First

¶23

Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara taken

¶24

cognizance for the offences under Section 5 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act on the allegation that he has violated clause 3 (1)(b), 3(c), 4(1)(b),(c), 4(2) and 7(e) of

¶25

LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 on Annexure-A2 final report.

¶26

Crime was registered based on Annexure-A1 complaint sent by the District Collector to Circle Inspector of Police, Mavelikkara. Allegation in Annexure-A1 complaint is that subsequent to

¶27

registration of the earlier crime 437/2007, Taluk Supply Officer seized 30 LPG

¶28

Crmc 1463/08 2

¶29

cylinders, 20 empty cylinders and 10 filled, from the property of G.Raman Pillai and when he was questioned he expressed ignorance about the storing of LPG in his property. Alleging that they were kept there for illegal sale, prosecution would contend that thereby accused committed offences under Sections 5 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act and clause 3(1), 3 (b), 3(c), 4(1)(b)(c), 4(2) and 6 and 7(e) of LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that there is no violation of provisions of the LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000 and hence continuation of the proceedings is only an abuse of process of the court.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶31

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were

Crmc 1463/08

heard.

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, unless there is violation of the provisions of Section 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c), 4(1)(b)(c), 4(2), 7 (c) of LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000, no offence under Essential Commodities Act is attracted. Petitioner is admittedly the distributor of LPG cylinders of Indian Oil Corporation Limited by name Coral gas agency. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by circular CAO/S/08 dated 26/9/2005, cash-n-carry facility was stopped by the Indian Oil Corporation so as to avoid bulk marketing and scarcity of LPG cylinders. Therefore, subsequent to Annexure-A3 order LPG cylinders are to be supplied by the distributor to the respective houses of the consumers. When

¶36

Crmc 1463/08 4

¶37

there is no road access available to the houses of the consumers, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the gas cylinders could be supplied to such consumers, only after taking them, to their places. If there is no direct road access is available, the only way to take the gas cylinders is by taking in a bi-cycle or manually to the houses. If it is to be taken either manually or in bi-cycle, the gas cylinders are to be kept at one place temporarily. Though it is the prosecution case that 20 empty gas cylinders and 10 gas filled cylinders were found in the property of G.Raman Pallai who in turn expressed ignorance, it is to be born in mind that that property situated on the side of the road without any compound wall. In such circumstances, case of the petitioner that those cylinders were kept at

¶38

¶39

Crmc 1463/08

¶40

the place to be taken to the godown of the distributor later, after effecting supply to the consumers, can only be true. If that is the case, there is no question of any violation of various clauses of LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000 as contended.

¶41

Question has been elaborately considered in Crl.M.C.1518/2007. In the light of the decision in that case, it can only be found that prosecution of the petitioner on the ground that he has stored gas cylinders unauthorisedly in the property of another person, is not sustainable as those cylinders were kept there to be supplied to different consumers as stated by the petitioner. If that be so, there is no violation of any of the provisions of LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000, much less provisions of clause 3(a),(b),(c),4(1), (b),(c), 4(2), 7

¶42

Crmc 1463/08 6

¶43

Distribution) Order 2000. Hence no offence under Sections 5 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act is attracted.

¶44

there is an allegation that offence under Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act is also

¶45

committed, Annexure-A2 shows that said offence was not taken cognizance by the learned

¶46

Magistrate. Even if, it is taken that

¶47

cognizance was taken, there is no violation of