IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.2381 OF 2010. Date:08.04.2010 Between:- M/s.Sri Visweswara Oil and Lubricant Private Limited, having its registered office at F-138, Street No.5, Pandava Nagar, Delhi-91, Rep.by its Director Ravi Agarwal and another ..Petitioners/A-1 and A-2 And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through its SHO, Mills Colony P.S., Warangal. .. Respondent/Complainant ORDER:- This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.265 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Warangal to quash proceedings in that criminal case. The case pertains to offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. It is a case of alleged illegal transport of white petrol in tanker bearing No.MH-04-CA 8661 on 02.02.2009 and which tanker was intercepted at Shambunipet Fort Road, Warangal at Warangal-Khammam Highway. The chemical liquid was being transported under description of reducer. Quantity is shown as ten kilo litres worth Rs.1,77,000/-. After analysis of sample, the chemical was found to be ‘Naphtha’. So it is alleged that there is violation of the Naphtha (Acquisition, sale, storage and prevention of use in Automobile) Order, 2000 (in short, the Control Order). A-2 is owner of the tanker lorry. A-3 was driving the lorry. A-1 is stated to have lodged Naphtha into the tanker lorry and was transporting the same. After investigation, the Inspector of Police, Mills Colony Police Station filed the charge sheet before the Magistrate. 3. The only point urged by the petitioners’ counsel before this Court is that as per clause (4) of the Control Order, the Inspector of Police is incompetent to take up investigation and file charge sheet in this case. Opening words of clause (4) are to the effect-“Any Gazette Officer of the Central or State Government or any police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police duly authorized by general or special order by the Central Government or State Government as the case may be or any officer of the concerned oil company…….”. 4. In the case on hand, though the Assistant Supply Officer, Mahabubabad detected the offence, it is the Inspector of Police, Mills Colony Police Station, who registered the crime, investigated into the same and filed charge sheet in the lower Court. It is contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor that Inspector of Police in our state is a Gazetted Officer and that therefore, he is competent to register the case, investigate into the same and file the charge sheet. But, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that qualification as Gazetted Officer is applicable only in the case of officers of the entral or state government and that if it is a case of a police officer, then that police officer should not hold rank below that of Deputy Superintendent of Police and that gazetted rank of the police officer is immaterial if the police officer is below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He placed reliance on CH.YEGNAIAH AND SONS VS. STATE OF A.P.[1] in support of his contention. It was a decision rendered by this Court while interpreting clauses 2(e) and 5 of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and distribution and prevention of malpractices) Order, 1998, which is in pari materia with clause (4) of the control order in question. It was held therein that a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is not a competent officer under that control order. 5. It is contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor that apart from Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, there is also Section 420 I.P.C in this case and that the offence under Section 420 I.P.C can be validly investigated by the Inspector of Police. Competency of the police officer has to be judged with reference to totality of penal provisions in the charge sheet and not in respect of each and every offence separately. If on total consideration of all the penal provisions, the police officer is not competent to investigate and file charge sheet in respect of one offence mentioned therein, the entire investigation would be vitiated. Further, there is no element of cheating and ingredients of cheating in this case. There is no victim in this case muchless dishonest or fraudulent repesentation to any victim making the victim to part with property or valuable security. Thus, section 420 I.P.C is totally inapplicable in the present case. 6. It is further contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor that competency of the police officer is only a procedural irregularity and it cannot go to root of the case. In fact, offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the Control Order is itself a procedural offence. In a case of this nature, it has to be seen whether there is strict compliance of procedure prescribed by law. Otherwise, clause (4) of the Control Order becomes functionless. 7. Having regard to above discussion of the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that investigation and final report/charge sheet in this case are vitiated by law inasmuch as there is contravention of clause (4) of the Control Order in this case. It follows that the petitioners are entitled for relief as claimed for in this petition. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.265 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Warangal in so far as the petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are concerned. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 8th April 2010 AMD [1] 2003(1) ALT (Crl.)39 (A.P.)