Sudhir Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.p. And 2 Others

Sudhir Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.p. And 2 Others

(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4115 of 2023 | 04-09-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State-respondents.

2. The writ petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 16.02.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.66 of 2023, under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Qilla, District Bareilly.

3. The first information report alleges that the District Supply Officer, Bareilly on receiving information of a vehicle carrying domestic gas cylinders being stopped by the public, reached on the spot and was informed by one Faizan that he had received information of a vehicle carrying gas cylinders in the area of Swalenagar near Qilla, which contain under weight gas cylinders. The driver was asked to weigh the cylinders but he refused and ran away leaving the vehicle bearing Registration No.UP25 ET-8334 . The vehicle did not bear the name of any gas agency. The name of the driver was Amit and he had stated that he is a hawker/ driver of M/s Raj Gas Service Bharat Gas, Opposite to Bus Stand, Bareilly.

4. Amit has also deposed in writing that n 15.02.2023, he had obtained 48 domestic gas cylinders for delivery. 40 gas cylinders had been distributed to the residents of Swalenagar area and 8 filled cylinders were left. He had stopped the vehicle and had gone to deliver the cylinders, when people asked him to weigh the cylinder, he refused stating that the cylinder was weighed at the residence of the consumer.

5. The first information report also states that the driver / hawkers were not in uniform of the Gas Agency and on being asked for documents pertaining to the gas cylinders, only one document was produced and he did not possess any other documents. On inspection, it was found that 8 cyclinders were filed and 38 were empty cylinders. It was a case of black marketing and therefore, the first information report under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first information report is false and fabricated. It has also been vehemently argued that the hawkers/ driver had gone to supply the cylinders to the customers at their residence on the basis of online booking done by the customers and after a cylinder is handed over to the consumer, an entry is made in the pass book of the consumers and therefore, there is no need of any booking slip being available either with the consumers or with the hawkers.

7. It is also contended that on 17.02.2023, the godown of the petitioner was inspected by a team of Bharat Petroleum, Corporation Limited and no irregularities or black marketing was discovered during such inspection.

8. It is lastly contended that the cylinders were booked online with the consumer numbers and mobile number of the consumers and details of such online booking were available in the Gas Agency computers.

9. A supplementary affidavit has been filed consequent to time having been granted for the same. Certain receipts have been appended along with the supplementary affidavit. It has been averred as follows in paragraph 4 of this affidavit-

" 4. That in fact at the time of inspection one delivery slip available in possession of the driver on vehicle, at that time both hackers were doing lunch in near tea hotel but aforesaid team without waiting of hockers Shivam have taken possession of vehicle and brought to aforesaid vehicle with cylinders Gas Agency of M/s Chandra Gas Service, Bareilly and have done weight of refilled cylinders and non-refilled cylinders after that team has given custody of aforesaid cylinders to M/s Chandra Gas Service, Bareilly but he has not mentioned aforesaid fact of weighing the cylinders in the impugned FIR/ Recovery Memo, that in fact during checking no any irregularities/ diversion / black marketing was found against the petitioner or his workers but due to pressure of aforesaid media person and higher political person on the basis of oral direction given by the District Supply Officer, Bareilly checking team has falsely implicated to the petitioner and his employees present case."

10. Learned AGA has opposed the writ petition.

11. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. The first information report alleges that the driver/ hawker of the vehicle carrying domestic gas cylinders was able to produce only one slip and did not possess any other requisite documents. The case of the petitioner is that the cylinders were in the process of delivery to the customers, who had booked them online and that no illegality or any fraud had been committed.

13. The above submission are the defense of the petitioner, the same is not liable to be considered. This is so because in the absence of any document or list of consumers to whom cylinders were to be supplied, there was no way, the hawkers could have delivered the cylinders to the residence of the consumers, who had allegedly booked them.

14. It cannot be accepted that the driver and hawkers were aware of the address and identity of the consumer to whom, 48 cylinders were to be delivered without a list of bookings made. No such list has been produced along with the supplementary affidavit, although time had been granted for filing the same. The said list is stated to be available in the computer of the Agency.

15. This defense of the petitioner is not worthy of credence. It is also not liable to be taken into account in a writ petition, which seeks quashing of the first information report. It would suffice to state that the allegations in the first information report constitute a cognizable offence. The first information report therefore, cannot be quashed.

16. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

Advocate List
Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA
  • HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA
Eq Citations
  • 2023/AHC/175078-DB
  • LQ/AllHC/2023/6060
Head Note

A. Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — Ss.3/7 — Black marketing of domestic gas cylinders — Allegation that vehicle carrying domestic gas cylinders was stopped by public, driver asked to weigh cylinders but he refused and ran away leaving the vehicle bearing registration bearing no name of any gas agency — Driver deposed in writing that he had obtained 48 domestic gas cylinders for delivery, 40 gas cylinders had been distributed to residents of Swalenagar area and 8 filled cylinders were left — He had stopped the vehicle and gone to deliver the cylinders, when people asked him to weigh the cylinder, he refused stating that the cylinder was weighed at the residence of the consumer — Driver/ hawkers were not in uniform of the Gas Agency and on being asked for documents pertaining to the gas cylinders, only one document was produced and he did not possess any other documents — On inspection, it was found that 8 cyclinders were filed and 38 were empty cylinders — Held, in the absence of any document or list of consumers to whom cylinders were to be supplied, there was no way, the hawkers could have delivered the cylinders to the residence of the consumers, who had allegedly booked them — It cannot be accepted that the driver and hawkers were aware of the address and identity of the consumer to whom, 48 cylinders were to be delivered without a list of bookings made — No such list had been produced along with the supplementary affidavit, although time had been granted for filing the same — Said list is stated to be available in the computer of the Agency — Defense of the petitioner is not worthy of credence — It is also not liable to be taken into account in a writ petition, which seeks quashing of the first information report — It would suffice to state that the allegations in the first information report constitute a cognizable offence — First information report therefore, cannot be quashed — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 (Paras 12 to 16)