IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1809 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.324/07 OF CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ------------------- T.K. AMEERALY, MANAGING DIRECTOR DIAMOND ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT.LTD. MAVILANGU JUNCTION, PALLOM POST KOTTAYAM-686 007. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION KOTTAYAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1809 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. 3710 bags of wheat - allegedly ration wheat, was found in the premises of M/s Diamond Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Chingavanam, of which the petitioner is said to be the Managing Director. It is the case of the Civil Supplies Department and the police now that this huge quantity of wheat was really the wheat entrusted for distribution in the Public Distribution System of the State. It is alleged that this huge quantity of wheat was diverted from the Public Distribution System to the petitioner illegally and without bona fides. A crime has been registered alleging the offences punishable under the Essential Commodities Act read with the Kerala Rationing Order. To put it in a nutshell, the contention is that this huge quantity of ration wheat was found in the unauthorised possession of the petitioner. The Civil B.A. No. 1809 of 2008 -: 2 :- Supplies Department and the police have not been able to make a specific allegation so far that this quantity of ration wheat came from any specific quota allotted to any ARD or AWD or any other functionary under the Public Distribution System. But it is alleged that the article is ration wheat and the same must have come into possession of the petitioner unauthorisedly. 2. The petitioner has a contention that the quantity of wheat seized from his premises is not ration wheat; but is wheat which is available in the open market. According to the petitioner, he had procured the same from various sources and there was absolutely no illegal, improper or contumacious procurement of any wheat from any source. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues vehemently that it would be puerile now to assume that the wheat seized is ration wheat which must have found its way into the possession of the petitioner from retail and wholesale dealers or other functionaries in the Public Distribution System. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, at any rate, the petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. The petitioner shall be able to show, in the course of trial, that he had come into possession of this quantity of wheat through legal and authorised channels, submits counsel. B.A. No. 1809 of 2008 -: 3 :- 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that notwithstanding the fact that the specific allegation as to the AWD/ARD or other functionary in the Public Distribution System from whose possession the ration article had found its way to the possession of the petitioner cannot be specified now, that cannot deliver any advantage to the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that there is overwhelming material to show that the petitioner had not procured the wheat in question through legal channels and that the petitioner must have come into possession of such wheat only through the functionaries in the Public Distribution System. In this connection, the learned Public Prosecutor relies on the materials which are available to indicate that the article is ration wheat and not wheat available in open market. 4. In the nature of the contentions raised, the Case Diary was directed to be placed before me for my perusal. I have perused the same. At this early stage of the investigation, I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I have gone through all the relevant materials including the statements and certificates B.A. No. 1809 of 2008 -: 4 :- issued by the authorities of the F.C.I. as also the order dated 5/10/07 passed by the Secretary of the Civil Supplies Department, I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioner. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual and normal course. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge B.A. No. 1809 of 2008 -: 5 :-