Korukonda Srikanth vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Mr.M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 6(a) and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Act, 2000, in pursuance of Crime No.132 of 2022 of Srikakulam II Town Police Station.

Mr.M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, would further submit that the allegations levelled against the petitioners and the charge sheet levelled thereof is regarding that the petitioners/accused are regularly conducting business transactions by storing and selling LPG cylinders without any permission or Form-B licence. Though the petitioners are having GST number, the same pertains to address of Kanukurthi vari street, Srikakulam, and the accused cheated the Government and misappropriated the Government funds, thereby contravening the provisions of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000. 4. The charge sheet further indicates that the said allegations were found to be noted after credible information received on 18.07.2022. Thereafter, the concerned officer has conducted a surprise inspection and found Accused Nos.1 and 2 involved in the business transactions in contravention of the provisions, thereby attracting the essential ingredients contained therein.

Mr.M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, would submit that the very basis of levelling allegations against the petitioners is that the petitioners/ accused are running the business without permission or Form-B licence from the appropriate authority. However, the alleged acts do not constitute the offences of cheating and misappropriation in view of the circular issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies vide Reference No.E3/723/99, dated 14.08.2000, which reads as follows: “In the reference 1st cited instructions have been issued to all Collectors/Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad that the parallel marketers are exempted from possessing a licence to deal in LPG upto 300 kgs. of L.P.Gas under the A.P.Petroleum Products (Licensing & Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. If the quantity exceeds 300 kgs. of L.P.Gas the parallel marketers in LPG shall have to obtain a licence under A.P.Petroleum Products (L & RS) Order, 1980. In the reference 2nd cited, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad while allowing the Writ Petition No.1130/95 dt.29-12-1998 filed by Shri Jhakti LPG Limited and in the reference 3rd cited the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. while allowing the Writ Petition No.26534/96 dt. 2-7-99 filed by Mahagas Dealers Distributors Association Karimnagar ordered that the State Order of 1980 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, who is a parallel marketer under the Central Order, 1993. A copy of the orders of Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad in this regard is herewith sent to all Collectors/Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad for appropriate action. As per the above orders the parallel marketers of LFG are not required to possess licence under A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. Therefore all the Collectors/Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad are hereby requested not to insist for licences on the parallel marketers under A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 as ordered by the High Court. All the Collectors/Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad are requested to issue suitable instructions to all the concerned in the above matter, accordingly.”

Mr.M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, would further submit that the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act were initiated against the petitioners before the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Srikakulam. Ultimately, orders were issued on 27.01.2024, reiterating the circular issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, dated 14.08.2000 (referred to above), wherein it was observed that there is no need for Form-B licence for parallel marketing and it is only the procedural irregularity and can be taken in a lenient view and accordingly, ordered for release of stocks subject to payment of a fine of Rs.25,000/-.

In the 6-A proceedings, Mr.M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, would point out that the charge which is framed against the petitioners is whether the requisite licence or permission is required to be obtained through a Form-B licence for carrying on parallel business, for which there was a specific finding in the proceedings dated 27.01.2024, which reads as follows: Charge Explanation Findings The LPO (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000, Clause 11(b). The Rating certificate shall be issued in the format as specified in Schedule-V, and as per the forwarding letter given in Schedule VI. Rating Certificate for Parallel Marketer vide Ref. No. MDRA/175, Dt.14.12.2021 produced in favour of M/s Confidence Petroleum India Ltd., It is Crisil rating certificate issued by Marketing and Development Research Associates, The company given LOU in favour of S.J. Parwathi Enterprises, Go- Gas Stock point, Srikakulam. The Respondent has explained that, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies has clarified that there is no need of Form-B license under APPP (L&R)s order 1980 to the parallel marketer in LP. Gas and requested to drop the case and release the seized cylinders. Even though having documents, the Respondent could not produced at the time of inspection. Since the documents not produced to the officers inspecting they booked a case. The Respondent has attended for hearing on 01.08.2023 pleaded guilty and filed explanation before the Joint Collector, Srikakulam along with Rating Certificate, Storage license issued by the Controller, Chief Controller Explosives. In CCS reference No.E3/723/99, dt.14.08.2000 it was The LPG (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000, Clause 11(5). Every parallel marketer shall file a certifiedof the certificate of rating Rating Certificate for Parallel Marketer vide Ref.No.MDRA/175, Dt.14.12.2021 produced in favour of M/s. Confidence Petroleum India Ltd., The company given LOU in favour of S.J. Parvathi Enterprises, Go- with the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Oil Co-ordination Committee, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies of the Central and the State Government and Collector of the District in which he imports, transports, bottles, markets, distributes of sells liquefied petroleum gas. Gas Stock point, Srikakulam.of the Certificate of rating in submitted.

With regard to the charge framed by the concerned officer, learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of the concerned authority that there is no need to obtain Form-B licence in view of the circular issued by the Commissioner himself. The concerned officer has taken note of the same, considered the same, and, after reiterating the essence of the circular dated 14.08.2000, passed orders by taking a lenient view.

On the other hand, Mr.G.Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, would argue that the parallel business requires Form-B license permission from the competent authority under the clauses levelled against the petitioners, which are mandatory in nature.

This Court has considered the arguments advanced by Mr.M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr.G.Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the circular issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies dated 14.08.2000 clearly engrafts that the persons running parallel business are exempted from possessing a Form-B license to deal with LPG up to 300 Kgs under the A.P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980. The said circular was also considered by the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Srikakulam, on 27.01.2024, who is the competent authority before whom the proceedings were initiated. Ultimately, the proceedings were ended by directing the release of the stocks. In view of the aforesaid circular, there is an exemption and there is no misappropriation or cheating on the part of the petitioners.

Now coming to the very issue of the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer against the petitioners in C.C.No.939 of 2023, this Court finds that the Investigating Officer has totally without any application of mind to the circular issued by the State, dated 14.08.2000, wherein there is an exemption from obtaining Form-B licence and the very allegation against the petitioners/accused is that they carried on business without obtaining permission/Form-B license from the competent authority and thereby cheated the Government and misappropriated the Government funds, in contravention of the provisions of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000. However, in view of the aforesaid circular, the said allegations do not attract at all and are not appealing.

It is also needless to state that the law is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters to be considered while examining the contents of a complaint and the circumstances under which further proceedings can be permitted to continue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 102 of the said judgment, enumerated seven illustrative categories warranting the exercise of such juri iction, which are as follows: “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com-plaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

There is no res integra to the legal aspect underscored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again, that not only in the absence of any legal intricacies or where the proceedings are contrary to law or statute, but also when the very charge sheet is filed ignoring the circulars issued by the Government, the High Court can intervene under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which are binding upon the Investigating Officer, who also forms part origin of the State and necessarily draws the very action as unconstitutional under Article 13 of the Constitution of India.

In the present case, this Court finds that there is a total and complete dereliction of duty on the part of the Investigating Officer in filing the charge sheet by totally misconstruing the provisions of law and circular dated 14.08.2000. The judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.1928 of 2022, dated 14.10.2024, adds further strength to the case of the petitioners. The relevant paragraphs in Crl.P.No.1928 of 2022 read as follows:

In view of the above observations and applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the proceedings in Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District, are hereby quashed.

Resultantly, the Criminal Petition No.7361 of 2023 is allowed.