IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD THURSDAY, THE9H DAY OF JANUARY201419TH POUSHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 156 of 2013 () -------------------------- CRIME NO. 732/2012 OF KALADY POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- MARTIN, THE PROPRIETOR, PALLICKALAGRO MILLS, MATTOOR, KALADI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATECIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN - 682020.
2. THE STATEOF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV.SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN,STANDING COUNSEL R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI REJI JOSEPH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0901-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.MC NO.156/2013 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED2405.2007 ISSUED TO HOM FROM THE OFFICE OF COMMERCIAL TAX. ANNEXURE-A2: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.732/2012 OF KALADY POLICE ANNEXURE-A3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED2011.2012 OF THE FOOD ANALYST, GOVERNMENT ANALYSIS LABORATORY, KAKKANADU. ANNEXURE-A4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE-II OF THE AGREEMENT DATED1611.2011 CONTAINING THE ' SCHEDULE OF SPECIFICATIONS ' PETITION FOR STAY FILED U/S.428 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// A.HARIPRASAD, J.
-------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.156 of 2013 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2014. ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.732 of 2012 registered by Kalady Police implicating him in offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). The first information statement along with Annexure A2 FIR shows the following allegations: The Regional Manager, Supplyco, Ernakulam gave the statement. According to her, she was working as the Manager in the Supplyco for the last 8 months. A team was constituted for conducting raid to check up the quality of rice supplied by the rice mill owners for public distribution. On 03.07.2012 at about 1 p.m., the defacto complainant along with other officers conducted an inspection in the rice mill owned by the petitioner/accused. Admittedly, the petitioner was having a contract with the Civil Supplies Corporation to supply rice for public distribution. On inspection, it was found that the petitioner had kept rice of inferior quality than that was agreed to between the Supplyco and the petitioner. After filing the complaint before the Police, the stock found in the mill of the petitioner was kept in custody. Crl.MC No.156/2013 2 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor was also heard.
3. Annexure A1 is the certificate of registration issued under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 in the name of the mill owned by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexure-A4 is part of the contract executed between the petitioner and the Civil Supplies Corporation whereby specifications have been fixed for processed rice. In the schedule of specifications shown in Annexure A4, permissible quality of broken rice, foreign matters, damaged rice, discoloured grains, dehusked grains and moisture content has been specifically mentioned. Annexure A3 series are the certificates of examination issued by the Food Analysists of the Department of Health Services, Government Analytical Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. Admittedly samples taken after registration of the crime were produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction wherefrom, it was sent for analysis. The analysis report pertaining to various samples taken in this case would show that the quality of rice conformed to the specifications mentioned in Annexure A4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this itself is sufficient to show that no offence has been made out in this case 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent drew Crl.MC No.156/2013 3 attention of this Court to the statement submitted by the 1st respondent in this case. It is the case of the 1st respondent that 1770 bags of inferior quality rice processed for public distribution was found in the rice mill owned by the petitioner. It is also mentioned in the statement that the rice taken by the Police in custody was received by the 1st respondent as per order of the Magistrate and the same was released to the petitioner himself as it was found not fit to be distributed through ration shops. The averments in the FIS taken along with Annexure A2 do not show a case that the rice seized from the petitioner was of an inferior quality than the one prescribed in Annexure A4.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexure A3 series certificates of examination of the samples would show that no offence is made out in this case in which the petitioner can be prosecuted.
6. The charges against the petitioner are leveled under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. In order to attract the offence under Section 406 IPC the definition of criminal breach of trust in Section 405 IPC will have to the satisfied. There is no case that the property entrusted by the Supplyco with the petitioner was misappropriated or converted for his own use. Further, there is no case that the paddy entrusted with the petitioner was dishonestly disposed of in violation of any direction or law. Therefore, none of the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust is established by the allegations in the FIS. Crl.MC No.156/2013 4 7. It is trite that to attract an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be elements of cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no fraudulent or dishonest inducement made by the petitioner and no intentional act has been done to sell rice of any inferior quality than the one prescribed. Therefore, no offence of cheating is also attracted. Considering the averments in the FIS in Annexure A2 and the specifications in Annexure A4 and the certificates of examination of rice (Annexure A3 series), I am of the view that there is no offence made out against the petitioner warranting the prosecution. Prosecution will be a futile exercise and no purpose will be served by continuing the same. In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure A2 FIR is hereby quashed. All further proceedings in Crime No.732 of 2012 of Kaladi Police Station are hereby dropped. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE. cks