206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.232 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 STATE OF PUNJAB .....Petitioner Versus RAMAYAN AND ANR. ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab for the petitioner. Ms. Prabhleen Kaur Siviya, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2 **** DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J. (Oral) 1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 16.10.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the revision petition filed by the respondents has been accepted and they have been discharged. 2. The facts, in brief, are that during the checking of one tractor trolley bearing registration No.PB-298-2920, some empty and filled cylinders 76 in number were found. Out of which, 57 cylinders were filled and 19 cylinders were empty. After weighment of the 57 cylinders, 10 cylinders were found having less gas and were found to be under weight. The checking was made by the Assistant Food & Supplies Officer, Ludhiana and he had made a complaint to the SHO, Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana, then the FIR was registered. SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.10 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR No.232 of 2008 (O&M) -2- 3. Learned State counsel submits that the respondents were rightly charged under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) However, the revisional Court discharged them solely on the ground that cognizance could not have been taken, holding that the Assistant Food Supply Officer could not file a complaint against the respondents to the police. Rather, the only remedy available was to move an application to the Director Metrolopy to file a complaint. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the revisional Court has rightly discharged the respondents as the police officials did not have the authority to take cognizance under the Act. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. This Court is in agreement with the observations made by the revisional Court that the police did not have the authority to take cognizance and the only remedy that lies with the Assistant Food & Supply Officer, is to make a complaint to the Director Metrolopy whereas, the cognizance was wrongly taken by the police. 7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the revisional Court. Hence, the present criminal revision petition is dismissed. 8. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of. (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) 09.07.2026 JUDGE sandeep Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SANDEEP KUMAR 2026.07.10 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.