Allowed

Rakesh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2016CRM-M/14888/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the search and seizure were illegal as they were conducted by a police officer without the presence of an authorized officer under the Act.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 154 dated 05.04.2015 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Rakesh Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

117

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-14888 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 05, 2016

Rakesh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Vikramjit Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

¶12

None for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶15

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondents State of Haryana and Kanwar Singh, SI, for quashing of FIR No.154 dated 05.04.2015 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 registered at Police Station City Rohtak, District Rohtak and for quashing of all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶16

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition. Respondent No.2 appeared in person earlier but later on, neither he nor any counsel appeared on his behalf.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶18

From the record, I find that FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of ruqa sent by SI Kanwar Singh, who stated that on 05.04.2015, he along with HC Surender Singh, CT Mahipal and CT Sushil Vineet Gulati 2016.12.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy andwas present at T-point Bhiwani-Hisar Road Railway Bridge, Rohtak and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

-2-

¶20

CRM No.M-14888 of 2015

¶21

they were checking the vehicles. During checking, one old Maruti Car bearing registration No.DL-3CH-9434 came, which was signalled to stop and on stopping, SI asked the name of the driver, who told his name as Rakesh and asked for documents but they failed to show the documents. Then the vehicle was inspected thoroughly and 18 HP gas filled cylinders were found lying in the car on back and front side. When the documents were asked, Rakesh could not produce any document and he was found to have committed the offence of illegal black marketing of domestic gas cyliners and by possessing the same, committed offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the car along with 18 cylinders was taken in police possession.

¶22

From the record, I find that FIR has been registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 but the perusal of the FIR shows that no authorized person under the Act has been associated at the time of inspection, search, seizure and proceedings nor FIR has been got registered at the instance of any authorized person of the Food and Supplies Department.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment passed by this Court in Suresh Kumar @ Bobby son of Madan Lal vs. State of Punjab, 2012(3) RCR (Criminal) 640 , in which, a police officer received information that accused was selling gas cylinders at higher price and seized the cylinders and a criminal case was registered against the accused. It is held therein that the officer did not associate any authorized officer of Food and Supplies Department in search seizure and the FIR was quashed. It is also held in that case that only an officer of the department of Food and Vineet Gulati 2016.12.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy andCivil Supplies of the Government not below the rank of an Inspector authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

CRM No.M-14888 of 2015 -3-

¶25

authorized by the State Government or any officer not below the rank of Sales Officer of an Oil Company authorized by the Central Government, in this behalf, was competent and police officer did not have the jurisdiction/power to enter, search any place or seize any article under the Act. I have gone through the above-cited judgment and the same fully applies in the present case.

¶26

Clause 9 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regn. Of Use in M.V.) Order, 2001 provides as under:-

¶27

9. Power of entry, search and seizure :- Any officer of the Central or the State Government, not below the rank of Inspector duly authorized, by general or special order, by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or any officer of a Government Oil Company not below the rank of Sales Officer, authorized by the Central Government, may, with a view to securing due compliance with the provisions of this Order, or for the purpose of satisfying himself that this Order or any other Order made thereunder has been complied with.

¶28

In view of the above discussion, I find that the FIR got registered by SI Kanwar Singh without associating the authorized person under the Act in search and seizure is not as per law.

¶29

Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is allowed. FIR No.154 dated 05.04.2015 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 registered at Police Station City Rohtak, District Rohtak and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

¶30

December 05, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶31

Vineet Gulati 2016.12.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Rakesh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Sunita Kumari Vs State of Punjab

Vishal Sharma and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rashpal Singh Vs Lakhwinder Kumar

Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ajay Mal Vs Ranvir Singh and Anr.