Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85502 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27887 of 2018 Applicant :- Dinesh Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Shukla,Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application has been filed by applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal case no.988 of 2018 (State vs. Dinesh Gupta and others) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) Chhibramau, Kannauj under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, arising out of Case Crime No.808 of 2017 P.S. Saurikh, District Kannauj along with cognizance, as well as, summoning order dated 11.07.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist, Chhibramau, District Kannauj. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially a first information report was lodged on 02.11.2017 on the ground that the police team along with Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned raided the factory named M/s Priya Rice & Daal Mill and have recovered 784 packets of food materials which is in violation of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as the aforesaid packets were having endorsement and mark of the food department. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not the owner of the premises, in question, and the control order which has been said to be violated has neither been specified in the first information report and nor the same has been come up in the investigation. He submits that specific pleading in respect of the fact that the applicant is not the owner of the factory, in question, and wife of the applicant is the owner, has been stated in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit which has been replied in para-23 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State, wherein, State has admitted the aforesaid fact. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that objection with regard to the fact as to which control order has been violated, has been stated in para-23 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., however, in reply to the aforesaid paragraph, in the counter affidavit State has not given any details of the control order which is said to have been violated. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that in the counter affidavit, it has been admitted that applicant is not the owner of the premises, in question, where the raid has been made. Further, he could not dispute the fact that details of the control order, which is violated, has not been given in the counter affidavit. 7. It is to be seen that in the present case, applicant is being prosecuted under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, penalties can be imposed in contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. In the present case, case of the applicant is that premises, in question, being M/s Priya Rice & Daal Mill was not owned by the applicant. In this respect specific pleadings have been made in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit, which is quoted herein below: "2. That it is respectfully submitted here before this Hon'ble Court that Smt. Saroj is proprietor of M/s Priya Rice & Daal Mill, and Applicant is husband of Smt. Saroj Gupta. And the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case by the first information only because he is husband of Saroj Gupta. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a true/photo copy of the registration certificate of M/s Priya Rice & Daal Mill is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.S.A.-1." 8. The aforesaid fact that applicant is not the owner of the premises, in question, and wife of the applicant is the owner, has been specifically stated in the aforesaid paragraph. The said paragraph has been answered by the State in para-23 of the counter affidavit, which is quoted herein below: "23. That the contents of paragraph no.2 of the supplementary affidavit are admitted as matter of record." 9. In view of the fact that applicant is not the owner of the premises, as to how, applicant is being prosecuted under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, has not been demonstrated by the State. Further, applicant has specifically stated in para.23 of the affidavit filed in support of the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. that details of the control order has not been mentioned in the first information report. Para-23 of the affidavit is quoted herein below: "23. That it is respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court that it is not mentioned in the first information report as to which control order has been violated by the applicant, therefore, the raid has taken place by the respondent no.2 is itself illegal and against the provisions of law as given the procedure of essential commodities act." 10. The aforesaid paragraph has been replied by the State in para- 17 of the counter affidavit, which is quoted herein below: "17. That the contents of paragraph no.23 of the affidavit is denied. As the action of the opposite party are in accordance Section 3/7 of E.C. Act, 1955, which itself is substantive law." 11. A perusal of the aforesaid para-23 of the counter affidavit would go to show that details of the control order which has not been violated has not been demonstrated by the learned A.G.A. 12. Once the applicant is neither the owner of the premises, in question, nor it has been stated as to which control order has been violated, then it cannot be said that the offence under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act would be made out against applicant, insofar as proceedings under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act is concerned, it is for the State to demonstrate that the applicant is contravened any order made under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act which the State failed to demonstrate before the Court. 13. 13. Accordingly, entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.988 of 2018 (State vs. Dinesh Gupta and others) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) Chhibramau, Kannauj under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, arising out of Case Crime No.808 of 2017 P.S. Saurikh, District Kannauj along with cognizance, as well as, summoning order dated 11.07.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist, Chhibramau, District Kannauj, is hereby quashed in respect of applicant only. 14. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 S.Prakash Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad