IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Misc. Criminal Application No. 517/2009 Magan Singh … Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ..Respondents. Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned A.G.A. for the State. [Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, ACJ (Oral)] By way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who is facing the trial in criminal case No. 107/2009, State Vs. Magan Singh U/S 3/7 E.C. Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, has prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 19-3-2009 as well as the entire proceeding of aforesaid criminal case. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner U/S 3/7 E.C. Act with the allegation that 39 quintals wheat, 14.10 quintals rice, 5.70 quintals sugar, 760 liters kerosene oil was found from the house of the petitioner. According to the Supply Inspector the petitioner has violated the provisions of Essential Commodities Act by placing the food-grains at some different place than the shop in question. Heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. and perused the record. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a licensee dealing with the food-grains. The petitioner 2 has annexed the permission accorded by the Block Development Officer to the petitioner as Annexure-4, which indicates that the petitioner was permitted to keep the recovered food-grains for storage at the different place on account of paucity of accommodation. Further Annexure-5 shows that the investigating officer recorded the statement of Block Development Officer, who specifically stated that he accorded the permission to the petitioner to keep the recovered food-grains at different place than the shop on account of the paucity of the accommodation. He has also stated that on account of the rainy season the food-grains was kept at a safe place so that the food-grains may not perish. The Block Development Officer has also stated that there was no intention to provide undue gain to the petitioner in granting the permission. The basic intention of the law is to prevent any person from hoarding of the essential food-grain and in view of the aforesaid circumstances it can not be said that the petitioner has ever any intention for hoarding of the food-grains by keeping the same at different place and in case he has kept the food-grains at different place that too with the permission of the concerned officer, therefore, I am of the view that in case if the proceeding continues under the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner, the same would amount to abuse of process of court. In fact no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the proceeding of criminal case No. 107/2009 State vs. Magan Singh U/s 3/7 E.C. Act, pending 3 before the Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The proceeding of criminal case No. 107/2009, State vs. Magan Singh U/s 3/7 E.C. Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, is hereby quashed. Dated: 14-09-2009 (B.C. Kandpal, ACJ) ISB 4