Allowed

Raju Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Nov 2021CRLMP/2967/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR under the Essential Commodities Act against a dhaba owner. Finding that the recovered diesel was for personal use within legal storage limits, the court relied on precedents to grant the petition for quashing.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.230/2018 registered at Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is quashed.

Raju Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2967/2019

¶3

Raju Ram S/o Prahlad Ram, Aged About 25 Years, By Caste Bishnoi, Resident Of 36 Mill, Boyal, Pipar City, District Jodhpur

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Chandra Prakash Pareek S/o Radhey Shyam Pareek, R/o Pipaly Gali, Nearby Arya Samaj, Kotwali Police Station, Nagaur, District Nagaur, The Then/presently Posted As Circle Officer, Circle Bilara, Range Bilara, District Jodhpur

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Dave For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

08/11/2021

¶13

The present misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.230/2018 registered at Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner owns a Dhaba (Hotel) and an agricultural field behind the same where he is undertaking agricultural activities. He further submits that 440 litres of diesel stored in two drums was recovered from the Dhaba of the petitioner and on account of which the present FIR was registered. He submits that since the petitioner is running a Dhaba and is involved in agricultural activities , the diesel stored was being used only for the purpose of running the DG Sets,

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMP-2967/2019]

¶17

tractor etc. He further submits that the diesel was purchased by the petitioner himself and the bills of the same are also held by him which clearly shows that the diesel was being used only for personal purposes.

¶18

Learned counsel submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Budha Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4279/2018 decided on 03.01.2019) .

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor though opposed the petition but is not in a position to controvert the fact that petitioner owns a Dhaba and an agricultural field as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Budha Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) as the facts are almost identical in the present case.

¶20

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the First Information Report as well as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel in the case of Budha Ram (supra).

¶21

Admittedly, 440 litres of diesel was recovered from the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner is having a Dhaba (Hotel) as well as an agricultural field behind the hotel where he is undertaking agricultural activities. Considering the fact that there is no evidence which shows that the petitioner was involved in selling of the diesel from his premises and the contention that the diesel which was stored in the premises was being used for running the DG Sets and tractor, it cannot be said that the same is in violation of Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. Moreover, as per the Petroleum Product (Maintenance of Production, Storage and Supply) Order, 1999, the petroleum products up to 2,500 litres can be sold to one customer at a time and therefore, the

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLMP-2967/2019]

¶24

recovery of 440 litres of diesel from the petitioner is well within the permissible limit provided by the provisions of law. Thus, the petitioner while holding the diesel up to the permissible limit as provided by the Order of 1999, cannot be held to have committed an offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶25

In view of the observations made by this Court in the case of Budha Ram (supra), the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR No.230/2018 registered at Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act is quashed.

¶26

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶27

3-/Vivek/-

Raju Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Ram v. State of Rajasthan

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

Parvindra Kaur Vs State

Gayatri Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan

Monu Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Birbal Vs State of Rajasthan

Umesh Kumar Soni Vs State