Virendra Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

1 Court No. ­ 33 Case :­ CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. ­ 747 of 2019 Petitioner :­ Virendra Pratap Singh Respondent :­ State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :­ Amit Misra, Ram Bhajan Chaudhary, Sri. Viresh Misra (Sr. Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :­ G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. Supplementary  affidavit  has  been  filed today,  which is taken on record. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that   in   the   FIR  the  accused  has  been   wrongly  described  as Radhe Singh in fact it ought to be Virendra Pratap Singh and as the same has been corrected in the police record therefore the petitioner even though he is not named in the impugned FIR has locus to file this petition. Heard Sri Viresh Misra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.B. Chaudhary, for the petitioner; Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State­respondent nos.1 and 2; and have perused the record. The   instant   petition   seeks   quashing   of   the   FIR   dated 26.12.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0209 of 2018, under Section 3/7  Essential Commodities Act, 1955,  Police  Station Paikauliya, District Basti. The   allegation   in   the   FIR   is   that   upon   receipt   of information that there had been illegal transportation/storage of petroleum   products/solvent,   a   team   was   constituted   under 2 direction   of   Up   Zila   Adhikari   comprising   Naib   Tehsildar, Harraiya,   Supply   Inspector,   Harraiya,   Supply   Inspector, Harasrampur   and   Supply   Inspector,   Kaptanganj   along   with other police personnel. The team seized a Truck No. WB 23C­ 2717 with 95 drums containing 200 litres of solvent in each of the drums. The sample of the solvent was taken and kept in sealed packets and, thereafter, the driver of the vehicle was interrogated.   The   driver  informed  that   he   had  procured the solvent   from   Maa   Samay   Mata   Chroma   Chemicals   Factory situated at Village Panchayat Jeetipur, Vikas Khand, Parsarpur whose owner is one Radhe Singh. Thereafter the premises of that factory was visited but no papers pertaining to licence, etc was  shown.   Rather,   people,   who   were   there   in   the   factory, escaped. The FIR was lodged by alleging that under the Petroleum Products (Maintenance Production, Storage and Supply) Order, 1999 (for short Control Order, 1999), a licence was required as per Government Order No.5250/29­7­2000­M­117/2000 dated 13.09.2000, but as no licence could be produced and there was storage of solvent/petro products much in excess of permissible quantity, there had been violation of the Control Order, 1999 and as such offence punishable under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act was committed. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   pressed   for quashing of the FIR on the following grounds: (a) that the petitioner held a valid licence for sale and purchase as a whole seller; (b) that the search and seizure operation was not carried out by a person empowered by the Control Order; (c) and that 3 the solvent that was seized was exempted from licence pursuant to   notification   dated   07.12.2006   issued   by   the   Ministry   of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Learned A.G.A., who has appeared on behalf of the State­ respondents, has submitted that the petitioner has not produced any licence, which is to be obtained under the Government Order dated 13.09.2000 issued under the Petroleum Products Order,   1999;   that   the   licence   produced  is  not   a  licence  for storage   of   petroleum   products,   but   is   a   GST   Registration Certificate and, therefore, the said certificate cannot absolve the petitioner   of   his   liability   for   violating   Control   Order,   1999, which is an offience punishable under Section 3/7 of E.C. Act. Learned   A.G.A.   also   submitted   that   Notification   dated 7.12.2006,   which   has   been   brought   on   record   through supplementary affidavit, is in respect of second amendment in Solvent,   Raffinate   and   Slop   (Acquisition,   Sale,   Storage   and Prevention   of   use   in   Automobiles)   Control   Order,   2000, therefore, it is not in respect of the Control Order, 1999, which becomes applicable by virtue of the definition of the petroleum products provided under Clause 2 (g) of the Control Order, 1999. It has been submitted that insofar as authority for search and seizure is concerned, that is misconceived because in the first part of the impugned FIR itself, it is clearly mentioned that the team comprised of Naib Tehsildar, Supply Inspector and other persons, who are gazetted officers. Even otherwise this would be a matter of investigation and the team can produce its authority as per law. We   have   considered   the   rival   submissions   and   have 4 perused the FIR carefully. Insofar   as   the   contention   of   learned   counsel   for   the petitioner   that   no   licence   under   the   Petroleum   Products (Maintenance Production, Storage and Supply) Order, 1999 is required is concerned that cannot be accepted because as per Clause 4 of the Control Order, 1999 the Central Government is empowered   to  notify   for   its   requirement   for   storage   etc.  of petroleum products. From the allegation made in the FIR, a Government Order dated 13.09.2000 was issued in that regard. The petitioner has not specifically stated that no such licence requirement   is   there   under   the   Government   Order   dated 13.09.2000 of which mention is there in the FIR. Moreover, even copy of the said Government Order has not been produced. Under the circumstances, we are unable to accept the aforesaid contention at this stage. Insofar   as   the   contention   that   the   Notification   dated 07.12.2006 excludes solvent is concerned, that submission is completely misconceived as it is apparent from a plain reading of the notification that it relates to a different Control Order of the year 2000 and does not at all relate to Control Order, 1999, of which violation is alleged in the FIR. We may observe that the definition   of   petroleum   products   under   Clause   2   (g)   of  the Control   Order,   1999   is   very   wide   inasmuch   as   it   defines petroleum products by stating that it means crude oil or any product   manufactured   out   of   crude   oil   or   from   another petroleum product including Aviation Turbine Oil, Motor Spirit, High Speed Diesel, Liquefied Petroleum Gas, Superior Kerosene Oil and Naphtha and Solvent or any derivative. The words used

5 are so exhaustive that a solvent, as allegedly recovered, would be  prima  facie  covered by  the  wide  definition  of  petroleum products provided in Clause 2 (g) of the Control Order, 1999. Moreover, it has not been shown to us that the Control Order, 1999 or any of its provisions has been repealed. The third submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the team was not empowered to make search and seizure cannot be accepted in view of the opening sentence in the FIR that the team comprised of such officials, who are gazetted officers. Even otherwise, this is a question of fact as the team members are free to demonstrate their authority under law for such search and seizure operation. For   the   reasons   stated   above,   we   do   not   find   a   good ground to quash the FIR or to interfere with the investigation. The   petition   is  dismissed.   It   is   clarified   that   any observation made by us is not to be taken as a finding in respect of the guilt of the petitioner for any of the alleged offences. Order Date :­ 22.1.2019 Ajeet