Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010124442017 2025:GAU-AS:906 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./207/2017 VIJAY KUMAR NANDA S/O LT. MULKHA RAJ NANDA, R/O GAHAN NAGAR, MAJGAON, TEZPUR AND THE MANAGER, OF THE M/S RAGINI OIL TRADERS GAROWAN PATTY, TEZPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR 2:SRI BIPIN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY S/O LT. PRABHAT CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY INSPECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY BUREAU INVESTIGATION ECONOMIC OFFENCES SIMANTAPUR GHY-32 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.R BEGOM, MR.S C BISWAS,MR.P KATAKI,MS.M DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, ,, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 28.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Borthakur, learned Addl. PP, Assam. Page No.# 2/4 2. The present application is filed assailing an order dated 03.02.2017, passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M) in GR Case No.13034/2013. 3. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that if the prosecution material on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed, is accepted to be correct, then also no case under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is made out and if that be so, the petitioner cannot said to have committed any offence under section 406/420 IPC. According to Mr. Kakati, learned counsel, it is an admitted position that there was no shortage of kerosene oil in the depot of the petitioner. 4. To appreciate such argument, let this court look into and consider the admitted position and the materials, the prosecution is relying upon. 5. An FIR was lodged on 19.10.2013, inter alia alleging that two persons, namely, Raj Kumar Nanda and Vijay Kr. Nanda (who are proprietors and Managers of M/s Ragini Oil Traders, Garowan Patty Tezpur, a sub wholesaler of S.K. Oil) used to issue S.K. Oil in very unethical and speculative manner and accordingly, a verification was done and on verification, it was observed that opening stock of S.K.Oil as on 20.08.2013 was 13090 ltrs and the quantity sold as per register was 1420 ltrs. And therefore, the stock available ought to have been 11670 ltrs. However, stock found available in physical stock was 9940 ltrs as per the tally sheet on over ground tank and as per capacity mentioned on the body of the overhead tank. Accordingly a stock difference to the tune of 1730 ltrs was found. Page No.# 3/4 6. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged and the aforesaid stock was seized in presence of the two witnesses. On receipt of such FIR, BI(EO) Case No.04/2013 under section 120(B)/406/420 IPC read with section 7 EC Act was registered. 7. It is available on record that the aforesaid seizure was made on 20.08.2013 and subsequently, in terms of an order of the District Collector dated 05.09.2013, the Inspector, FSC&CA, Tezpur received the seized 9940 lts of kerosene oil from the zimmadar on 09.09.2019. 8. On the same date after verification, the said Inspector wrote a letter to the Manager of M/S Ragini Oil Traders that on 09.09.2019 after issuing 9940 ltrs of seized S.K. Oil to the allotters, the inspector had physically found an additional 1725 ltrs of S.K. Oil as balance stock in the over ground tank No.2. After proper measurement, by transferring from tank No.8 to 2 by way of 10 ltrs & 5 (five) ltrs of measuring can. Accordingly the manager was asked not to issue any quantity of said balance quantity of the said S.K Oil without proper permission from the competent authority. 9. Thus the aforesaid letter dated 09.09.2013, it is clear that additional 1725 ltrs of S.K. Oil found subsequently on 09.09.2013. If that be so and if this 1725 ltrs of S.K. Oil is added, there will be no shortage of kerosene oil. Accordingly, this court finds force in the argument of Mr. Kataki that the prosecution material itself discloses that there was no shortage and if there was no shortage the petitioners cannot be charged for commission of offence under section 7 of the EC Act, 1955. 10. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have framed Page No.# 4/4 charges against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed by setting aside and quashing the order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati as well as the proceeding of GR Case No.13034/2013 under section 406/420 IPC read with section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. JUDGE Comparing Assistant