Sushil Bhaguram Mohite vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Facts

The applicant, Sushil Bhaguram Mohite, a wholesale grain trader operating as 'Mangal Traders' from Latur, is seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him. The proceedings stem from FIR No. 468/2021, registered on 14.09.2021 at Nandurbar Taluka Police Station for offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The FIR was lodged following the seizure of a truck carrying five gunny bags of rice. The prosecution alleged that the drivers lacked proper documentation, including GST bills and e-way bills, and that the rice was intended for the Public Distribution System (PDS). The applicant claims to have produced receipts showing purchase of rice from the open market (APMC, Latur) to the investigating officer. The charge sheet was filed, and the case is pending as Regular Criminal Case No. 89/2022 before the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nandurbar.

Held

The Court allowed the criminal application and quashed the proceedings against the applicant. The Court found that there was no evidence on record to establish that the seized rice belonged to the government or was intended for the Public Distribution System (PDS). The absence of government endorsements on the gunny bags and the failure of the Supply Officer to verify with government records were noted. The Court also highlighted that the applicant had produced receipts for purchasing rice from the open market. Furthermore, the Court invoked Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which mandates that cognizance of offences under the Act can only be taken upon a written report by a public servant. The Court observed that the Supply Officer had filed a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, not a written report as required by Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the Magistrate lacked the authority to take cognizance of the offence, making it unjust to proceed with the trial against the applicant. The ratio decidendi is that a criminal proceeding under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, initiated via an FIR under Section 154 CrPC, is invalid if Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, requiring a written report by a public servant, is not complied with.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case attracting Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against the applicant, considering the nature of the seized rice and the documentation presented? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contends that there is no evidence to show the seized rice belonged to the government or was specifically meant for the Public Distribution System (PDS). He argues that the gunny bags lacked government endorsements, and the Supply Officer did not verify with government records if the rice was allotted for PDS. The applicant asserts he purchased the rice from the open market, evidenced by receipts from APMC, Latur, which are part of the charge sheet. He further argues that the charge sheet does not specify any particular type of rice reserved for PDS that cannot be sold in the open market. Revenue's arguments: The State submits that the investigation is complete, and a charge sheet has been filed, warranting a trial. They argue that the sample of the seized rice matches the type meant for PDS distribution, and the drivers lacked GST bills and e-way bills, indicating a violation of control orders as the rice was transported from Latur to Ahmedabad, Gujarat.