Full Judgment
M.K. Chawla, J.
(1) Walayati Ram and Gulshan Kumar, father and son, applied to the Civil Supply Department of Delhi Administration lor the allotment of a Fair Price Shop. Their application was considered and sanctioned by the Department. They started their business in the name and style of ' M/s Walayati Ram Gulshan Kumar' at premises No. 387, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
(2) During the course of routine checking, on 22-3-1983, Shri M.I. Ansari, Inspector, Enforcement Branch of Food & Supplies Department, Along with other members of the staff, visited the premises, i.e. the petitioners' Fair Price Shop and on checking found that on 11-3-1983, two quintals, thirty two Kilograms and five hundred grams of R.B.D. Palm Oil in 15 tins and on 17-8-1983, two quantuls, 32 Kilograms and five hundred grams of rape-seed oil were issued to the Shop in 15 tins for which the petitioner bad not made any entry in their stock register. On the basis of said checking the Inspector lodged the report with the police under Section 7/10/55 of the Essential Commodities Act, which was registered as F.I.R. No 101, dated 24-3-1983 at Police Station Farsh Bazar, Delhi.
(3) In consequence of the filing of the said complaint, the license of the petitioners' shop was suspended vide order dated 26-31983. Later on the Assistant Commissioner of the Food & Civil Supplies Department cancelled the Fair Price Shop on 20-4-1983 with immediate effect.
(4) The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of suspension, filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner but the same was rejected. However, their appeal before the Commissioner of Food & Civil Supplies was accepted on 21-6-1983 and the cancellation of the Fair Price Shop was set aside, the license was restored and thereafter the petitioners started carrying their business regularly.
(5) During the pendency of the cancellation of the Fair Price Shop, the investigation in the complaint was completed and a challan was filed in the Court of Shri S R. Goel, Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi. The said Court issued notice to the petitioner, a charge was framed and the case was fixed for recording the prosecution evidence, which is still pending.
(6) After the petitioners were exonerated of the default by the department which was the basis of the filing of the complaint before the Sessions Judge, the petitioners filed a petition in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr, M(M) 132/84) for the quashing of the proceedings pending in the lower court. This Court, however, directed the petitioners to first apply and raise this plea before the lower court. Accordingly, an application was filed but the same was dismissed vide order dated 8-3-1985. This very order is under challenge in the present petition.
(7) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in brief is that, to start with, the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for the contravention of Section 7/10/55 of the Essential Commodities Act, inasmuch as they had committed irregularities in the distribution of rape-seed oil and R B.D. Palm oil. This was on the report of the department. However, after his appeal was accepted by the Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies, Delhi Admn., the very basis of the complaint on board. His further submission is that once the Department has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had maintained regular stock register regarding the distribution of the rape-seed and pal moil to the ration card holders, the the petitioners cannot be held liable for criminal offence. Hence it is a fit case for quashing the proceedings pending in the trial court, and the discharge of the accused persons.
(8) The State has opposed the application. According to the learned counsel, once the proceedings have been initiated and are pending adjudication, the same cannot be quashed unless and until a thorough probe is made by the Court.
(9) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and on going through the record, I am prima facie of the opinion that the petitioners have a good case for quashing of the proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Shahdara. The reasons are not far to seek. The facts are not in dispute. It is no doubt true that on 22-3-1983, the Inspector of the Enforcement Branch did discover the non-distribution of the commodity by the petitioners' Fair Price Shop to the ration card holders as no entry in the stock register regarding its distribution was found entered therein. This very finding was enquired into by the Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies Deptt. From door to door verification it transpired that the sale of the commodity has been confirmed in 90% cases whereas 10% card holders could not be contracted. On the basis of the fresh inquiry Commissioner came to the conclusion that in fact there was no default on the part of the petitioners' Fair Price Shop and the sale of the commodity has been established. On that basis he accepted the appeal.
(10) Immediately thereafter the petitioners approached this Court for the quashing of the proceedings but unfortunately the prayer was turned down. D.R. Khanna J. vide order dated 28-8-1984 observed as under : Prima facie the order of the Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies, support the case of the petitioners and tends to eliminate the indulgence in any mal-practice. However, there should be no reason to straight away interfere when the petitioners have not moved the Sessions Court and sought appropriate relief. There is nothing to suppose that the learned Additional Sessions Judge will not take the said order of the Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies, into consideration. The charge has still to be framed and at this stage the petitioners can well urge that in view of the order of the Commissioner, the charge should not be framed. Let the Additional Sessions Judge be thereforee moved in this direction. In case any adverse order is made, the petitioners can take such steps as may be available under the law.'
(11) In compliance with the directions of this Court the petitioners moved an application before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdara, but as observed earlier, the Court did not agree with the prayer and dismissed the application. The impugned order of dismissal which is sought to be supported by the State, has no legs to stand. The very basis of the complaint has been knocked down by the order of the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies Department. It has been done on the basis of a door to door verification from the ration card holders. Once the Department is satisfied with the Explanationn of the petitioners, the proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act loses all importance, as in fact the Department has to prove their case before the Court which has already been decided against them by the Deptt. itself. This very point was under consideration in a judgment reported as Rakesh Kumar v. State, 1985 Dlt 287. The sum and substance of the judgment is that where Food & Civil Supplies Deptt. is satisfied that there is no contravention of the conditions of license of an essential commodity on a later representation of the licensee, there was no justification or warrant for his prosecution on the initial case registered against him. This ration fairly and squarely applies to the facts of the present case and the learned counsel for the State has not been able to distinguish or rely upon a contra judgment. There is no reason to adopt a different view.
(12) As a result of the above discussion, the revision petition succeeds. The impugned order of Shri S.R. Goel, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, dated 8-3-1985 is set aside and the prosecution against the petitioners is quashed.