1 Cri.WP No.393/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.393/2010 Shaikh Rafiq Ahmed Qutubuddin - APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.BB Pulkundwar, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 20th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard finally. 2) The petitioner questions the prosecution in terms of FIR No.3002/2010 dated 9.3.2010 and consequent charge sheet No.3/2010 dated 31.3.2010, registered by Faizpur police station, District Jalgaon, for an offence under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955. 3) The prosecution case revolves that in a hand-cart, 1.05 quintals rise, meant for Shaleya Poshan Aahar scheme, was seen transported/carried, card was intercepted by one 2 Cri.WP No.393/2010 Sadiq Shaikh Hasan and informed on phone to the police, based on the same, FIR was lodged by Supply Inspector, Tehsil office, Yawal, against the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the goods/rice was transported/carried to the house of one Rauf Chahawala and Naseer Kutubuddin. and it was for the purpose of cleaning for preparation of Khichadi under an agency created by the petitioner with same Naseer Kutubiddin. 4) Learned Counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that the prosecution in terms of Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is not maintainable. Section 2(d) defines `foodstuff'. Rice, which has been seized, would not be branding within the definition thereof. Agency could be seen in the accounts and, therefore, transportation of the rice by itself would not cause infraction of Sections 3 and punishable under section 7 of the said Act. 5) Learned Counsel has given back history that it was abyss of dispair of said Sadiq Shaikh Hasan, who had personal grudge against the management, as his close relation was not accommodated in the school. 6) The transportation of food grain, which 3 Cri.WP No.393/2010 is a prohibited commodity, meant for specific purpose, for preparing foodstuff as a Khichadi to be given to the students, would definitely come within the ambit of Section 3 of the said Act. 7) Section 2(a), Explanation (v) of the Act deals with definition of "foodstuff". Law is clear as indicated in AIR 1981 SC 1485 – (K.Janardhan Pillai and Anr;. Vs. Union of India and Ors.), wherein the Apex Court has indicated, - "foodstuff" is broad term in which raw- material used for preparation including cooked oil or any oil material would be branding in terms thereof. Foodstuff means a substance with food value and the raw material of food before or after processing. Consequently, these two objections raised by learned Counsel failed. 8) The account to which learned Counsel has given reference would not be useful at this stage to be entertained as the accounts basically create despairing situation, if they are scanned and dissected in proper perspective. However, at this stage, this Court need not dwell upon the worth of the account as defence. It is open for the accused/petitioner to canvass this point as defence before the competent forum. 4 Cri.WP No.393/2010 9) Taking survey of all the facts, even if the informant – Sadiq Shaikh Hassan had personal vendetta, however, primarily, there was no licence and permission to the accused/petitioner to transport the foodstuffs meant for the specific purpose, which had given a reasonable impression to the authority concerned to be carried for the purpose other than for which it was notified. 10) The petition lacks merit, dismissed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/