M HEQ‘3 €$U§T {3F CHHATTE$GARHA BILA$§U§Q €r§mimi wsc. Fe‘i'i‘fian Na‘gé? a? 29G$ AFPLECA NT: Poamn Singh Versus QE§PON§ENTS Swm of Chhczffisgar§1 cmd ofhers s;? :Far arwewcemew af wder ea 3% Sawem'be Sdl- T. P. Shanna w‘ Judge ‘7'n aan D‘5*éUU8 £% r f >vwrM9»Z._.n wmmvOZUmZqm“ 3% {r wig? JL A 4.514 ywmh . 34wwr3uwc my! 2 maaEz mwsgy 01 $85 mm«‘mmwMmx 7L5f... C V 7 CL...&LL$. . _ ‘ x G3§§& mmwmn. wwiwmg Kgwmw3wwomm «39$ id hwg.§mmnu? ‘mgwocmw wamg $3163 ms, xmags. gain mmwwagm mm$ &§3Qwj§aarmxo mymmnwmwxwm awaE. “mu <mnwmh ”wad .vngg 7..\¢.+ (L0. T (Em h 3 mrLi :x. rrhn‘am KNWJ ukv L? mmgfg . V. m3 Maximum? «Lawn nwécw E3; 2&2) mavwxcumF <m5wm‘ .mxe macivnwa_ wwwwag hsgwnw4. m3 wagag ZnEE? mm ”xwawmx m3 waggg ‘ ‘ Lzmn\\ {Lynx \J/ a,» 3? Wan?m3 ~§oya~ 53cm $.53 9mg m “$2,?mac HiEnuP ZQmQ‘ t7 0) mr. '¥ ii "X m minRm“ mtg? m3 was ZQQQ? 3mmawocw wm”5%,.wxo %¢39§g§ moan.“ mgw 9E? ma«.mm: oxQ5. may Jwiwgs r «\mmxM } . f.r:.mt.._.u m)! w.:3» .l_r. ‘ ,. \k‘xh rw:‘v xnwéc maé mxa Euymy was? 9mgavg: mm ,Rnwy win, mgwwuawyaaaw Wwmi. mcwgmywn \\.\h¢ C\(x ‘rranw, m3 in;« 3 nag ammmavoc‘w _ mw , «\mQJm‘ wxu @wg. 3.“? Ummi. mc1m£a \\.)v $6» Cnawmx§§aa warmamsm? m3 Mwmgga. Qmwnm mwocw mm ”Ray mxo Mscgawwmxn: “Jukfr (.U. _. (“E"awKQm—H 3})1 r,\w“\ {Pafi’s‘iom Linda? Sacfim 48 f ‘he Cw? 04f Criminal Procedure 19?33 ,9resem': Mr. Mam} Paranvipe. cauasei for ‘i'he Qefi?§oner. Mr. Ravindm AgmwaL Pcmei Lawyar “fer’hg 5TGTe/rzspomden1' No.1. j 5mqie $¢nda Harm e Ma” ‘9 Sharma J 8y ’i‘hEs pe‘fiféon, fha pe’r%fioner has chaiiengad iegaiify rmé Droaria‘l'y of i’Ee crder darted 23-4-2903 ginswd by *kg Ammkmuw m Cr Wm! Qewsmn No 47/9007 wnerebv Seamed Addn? onai Sessmn: gum? mJ< mifwmed W3 arder ¥mmma charae dafed 19 2 2007 i7 passed by ‘a‘ima §h§ef Jadicia? Mmigm‘m; §mb§kaf3ur §n Crimimi (Cab: No.232/2006u Tkz ardar wwgmd i5 (:ha%§evxgad 9n f‘na gmund f’aa‘s‘ fhz a!%agad viwrxl‘ign of éhe cwmf‘l'isgarh (Fwd Erm‘ffs} Civii ic Disw‘ibufrim Sciname, 31991 Him Sher-'3- “ne §cheme'§ has; m1- imen framac? under ‘mz Chhaf‘risgark F005 $TU'Ffs {Diswibufmn} {Imfmi Gmri‘zm 1960 (fer Sho'rf ‘Tha Cam‘ml Order? and may vio?a?§w a? wfhe Sc?’!ezme is m? pumishabie under Sawim 3 raad anj'gfh Secfixm E7 of; We Essan“?icxi Commadi‘)‘ias Adi 1955 (fer Shaw? ”rhe Aw}. The Ccuw below has cem‘m'z’rmd gross i§§egaiiw by fmmng charge. Z have. heard ieameri mama: 'Fm” fine: parties and paused Tha impugnéd order as msa ’rha cow e‘? charge ghee? fiiad w behai‘f af “(ha pe'mioner. Mn AAmaj Param‘jrae) Mamad ceunseE far +he pai'i‘yioner, argued *rfncrfr m ‘fh'is case if *(faa aNagmim mcmie. ‘m fiaa goiice www/charge shag-t is admf‘md m H‘s- faae vaiua, a‘ger} “‘rhaw c a'icm mi we ge?i‘l‘imev mdev Sacrioh :x raw wiriw Sawion 7 of: ‘é'he Ad: UE mf be gussibie. He furfher submi?s 'x‘hm’ he is {19+ cimiiengiag ‘?1“fae ordar fmmmg chargg uadgr' Sad’ims 499: 1264?; m‘ ”r243 IPC Com," m5 €‘ne :harge sham- rzveais “mm“ the gresem‘ pefii'imar nag vic~§¢1‘ed abuses 5, 6, 7 {4’}. 9 {1) (2}, 11 and 12 of “m2 *F .1 5cheme. Emma 3:4 almighabie um‘kr chase 13 ’r‘ne said Scheme and cdso under Sac?%cm 7 0'2? “the Act The Shiva Gnvemmzm‘ hag m? iimmzd am; Schema wider +J1e grovisims 0“? Th6 {Scmrol Order because, W316 wid Cw'?r'oi Order céoes' m+ wafer any newer ugon The 5mm Govammen? To macaw smh Schzme or rm] sc§1eme and “fines. Schama grepared by The S'm’ra f3ovemman? is 3:1 axarcise of :rhe power conferrea‘ umar Ar‘Hcle 162 of ‘x‘ha Cans‘iLii‘ufion of Indéa. The Sa%emz 3o preparari i3 my? a par? 0r made Linder ’rhe IZQEE’Ho! QFde‘wl mgr-afora: any viaia’rion m‘ ‘rhz m‘cr‘ascdd Schema i$ me‘r Quni$§nab3e uncia‘f‘ Sav’dcm 3 mad wi‘r?‘ $ec§ion 7 of i‘he Act tawnad ceLmsei f0?” +hg Imwi‘rioner piacaci relianca in The maf‘har of Madwgx ibra§g5§a ?¢?Lw it’ikwéw. Sa%_"h wad whew v. 5mm a? f??? g ” Q mad am?§zer1 in aazi'sitsh whil'a cealrg Mfr}; *ka ggagi'iea 5f pewar f9 make Schema in Terms 0f ciause 2 {d} of ‘t5g Camro! Order: {he High Cour? of Madhya Pmdash has mid ~§~hcvf glause 2 £d) defines “éovernman? Scheme "ro mean a sckeme for disfribu‘rmn m‘ foaci'smffs “m consumer’s Throug¥x fair pr§ce 3mm 5-2? up by "riae 6ovemmanf in ‘%his behaif", bu? H does rm? swig? any power 1‘9 maka any scix‘iame. .Ln absence of any enabiing provisions To maka such Schama,‘ may Scheme so made wguid no? be a Schama mada umdrar fha Comm! Ordar'. The Gwemmen? is compefem ‘i‘s pmpara cm} rwke? a schema m 2xerc55a of power comferred under Ar‘ricie 1&2 c3; ‘iae Con::1‘ri‘%u“%im mi imia. Viaki‘l‘icn Q'F i‘he Scheme mada umder Ar‘Hcia 1&2 m: “The Consfi’mficn of indie is no? vieimian of any previsiqns‘ of “(he Cm‘h‘oi Seder, fher‘efore, vic§a+ian of each 5cheme és no‘? pumshabie Lmder Secfma 3 read wh‘h 5ec‘rian 7 m’: ”the ACT. Learned Counsei aieo reiiec} upon i'irae judgmen? 0'? 'J‘iie Apex Ceur’? ira “r‘ne mm’rfer of; f%a§§hyt3 Fméegh Rm‘iw ‘JEkre‘E‘a $angh 5aa§e?y arsd a‘rhers em. y. Smm a? MMhya Rmsiesh are! whe the Jaspex 1 ; " r? has he§d “Hm" the Scheme so made is noT viaiafive 0f ArTides M- & 19 of The Con3?i‘m+ion a"? India, He :Furfher p§acec§ re§ianee ha ”me ma‘Her 9F Pmkesh &abu .Quaghuvanshé v. $‘é‘e?e e§ MP? s'r: whisk “me Apex curi- has held the? the erder incéue‘es a direc‘fitm issued Thereunder‘ l?‘ The case of \{iofa?§0?1 9‘? ‘Hqe .Sdnerpei fhe case was remanéed To 1%e Higiq Cour"? ‘For hearmg afresh af’rer mkiag mgr-y e1? ‘rhe smd Cmfmi Greer which was irhe ‘Fouadcvmn For mkjmg ecfion in The case. On The ofher han¢ Eeamec’i caunse§ opgearieg fer ‘fne §?a?e/respmdenf No.1 referring to fim case 0f Eviaihm ?mde3h Ra?éen ‘Jikr‘e‘m: §cmgh and whem {eugerajg submi’h‘ed ?hm‘ aiming f’ae actencemy of fame pamorae: “(he 6overnmew3' made ct Emheme far disTviivu‘srkm a? ‘Feodsmffs through fair mice ei‘iogs under ciause 2 {d} 61’: fee Confroi Order, same was under chaiiengae before 14w High Cam“? 0f fi’iadhya Prudesh in The above case in 3 1 3LT 564 2 Axe 1953,1 SC 2am 3 {20%) ? scc 490 2 e '7 which if was irleid by “fhe Divisim Ranch of ‘l'he High Cour-T of Madhva Prade$h in ’rhe year 1981 ‘i’hcz'r “Fae Confroi Ordar does no? give any bawer to make any Scheme undar ciausa 2 (d) or my aThar clause and any scheme made “far disfribmign o‘F fwd 31'L1'ff$ Thmugh ”fair arises shops may be a schema mada by i‘he Sm‘k Elovammenf in exercise af pnwar cmfwrgd urycier‘ 1%?icia 152 m.‘ 'i‘ha Comfi‘w‘rbn 9f Endiq and m? waiter 1512 Com‘mi Ordgr. $13? m Thz ins?a?IT case; fha amifiomr‘ §ms no? cMiknged iegaii'iry and progriew 0'? i’he Chha’rfisgarh {Fwd 5Tuffs) Civii Supgaly ?ubiic Diswii’pu’x‘bn Schame madz by ‘rg 5mm §Qv£mmew 5efm~2 1981, bu? he has chaiiengzd iegaliw and gmpariy '9”? *r‘me Schgma 0f 1991 which came im‘o foray: wi‘fh effac‘i‘ J’mm 1-1—3992. The afaresaiti $chame. which is undar ahailmge in The insmm sasa) %s wenared in exercise 9f Jrhe nowar confawed by ciau§e 4 of “:‘he Cmfra? omen Vida wofifica‘l’ian No‘F-4/i113/ 89/)(X1Xf2 iBhnmi dafred 21-2—1991A ‘i’he S’rme Governmem has amemded chug: 2 (d) am} ciausg 4 m‘ fhe Cam‘rrci Order which came Mm farce from 2142—1991; Cicauses 2 {t‘éE 0f ‘rhe Confmi Order raadg ‘fhus: “Govemmem‘? Scheme" means “firm scheme for disfribu?ion oT , Food sfuffs ‘ro censumzrs ‘k’nrbugn . Tair r price shops se? up by %he fmvemmsam .a. 5r; ?u%s L Iaeiam; L5 urzua.‘ A ,. mause I wA s;£ ‘rhis créer. Gauge: fr 0f “?%1e: Cot/1W0? Ordev reads ”thus: \ .ww “Governmgm‘ may maka a schame {0r fhe d5s1‘ribufion a? Food smffs fro The consumers fhrough fair Brice shops.” Laornrid; Panei Lawyer oiso subm‘i’s fhai‘ so i‘hs cases of Maéhya ?rac§e$§1 Ro+§m 2i§§<ro?o, Sosg‘n emu? whorls (sugars) & Mashya {’mdash Room Vikrsm 5aragh Soooiery sod waors okissoro‘). if has boon haid rho"? fhe 5mm 6ovgrnmen‘f was no“? empowered ‘ro make (my Schema uHder The Co‘wfroi Orders 'm abssrxce 0‘? my. enab§§ng provisions Bu? “rho Confrol Order has bsen amended vid'e nofif§cwion No.F—4/113/89/XXIX/2 Bhood dafad 21—2—1991 wéfh affair ”from 21-2-1991 and offer 21—2-1§91. Tha S‘m‘re Goverw‘mam‘ was amoowergd f0 make 5chsme for disfribu’rion of food s'to‘ffs “m Th3 consumers shrougk ‘g‘dr price shops. The Sioie Governmew? has modo This Sheilama is: accordame wifh oiausa 4 of: i‘he / , CDWmE Grder for which ”(ha Smw $0v2mmen? is combefen‘r and +hv .Scheme sa made Lander cizuJsse. 4 03’: ‘me £unfro§ Order is fhe 5c'heme made uMaf‘ fihe {Swim} Order w§1ich is cm"? and mrcel ff? The. Camh‘m Grdgr. V§o§a‘?ien of sach Scheme. is vioicMon a? ‘i’he Coafrei Order, same is vioim’ive of Semim 3 of ‘x‘he Ac? buni$hab?g mmiar Seci‘ima 7 0f “(he Ac‘h g. This is a ga'z‘i‘¥i<m fiiac! mndar Sac-Tim 4B2 of “ma CraRC. for qws§1meM of crimiml charge far offenca pmnishabia Lmder See‘hms 3 read wifh Sgcfiom }’ of ”me £5? and 409 & EZC—B of 'Ma LRC. Imférference in axemise 0“? irsherzm jurisdicfim’: umier Sam‘ien 4E2 0f The Cr.P.C. can &e made in raves? c1? mm case‘s with a viaw +0 gliva affec’r 1‘0 The 0mm” unéer “‘rhe 03:32 “ts prev-em abuse of gracess oi? +3'ze Cam? and ‘m ofharwsa secure fhz arms of ju$'z‘ice. Im‘aarenf guvisdictian m" ax‘hda ordimrv JurisréicTim .mdav $gcfian B2 of fhg (:rPJC. sfmuid be. axeraked smring§y, én rams? of mm cases. 41>. Copy of fhe charge shag? reveo§s mm The aiizgad offence has been commi?+ed on 11—11-1998‘ In exercise of fhe power conferrad bv ciause 4 of The Comroi Ordar, The 5mm of Madhya Pradesh has ‘formmofed a Scheme known as The Mod§1ya Pradesh (Food Smffs) Civi? Sunniy Pubiia Disfr-ibm‘ion Scheme, 1991 wifh affecf from 1—1—1992. The grasem’ Schema of 1991 hos no? been made under“ clause 2 (d) of fhe Confroi Order or under Arficie 162 of The Consfifu?ion of India. Af‘mr omendmen'i' of douse 4 of fhe Comm? Order, i’he Sm‘re 6overnmeeJr was empowered 1‘0 formuia’fe a Scheme under The Confroi Order. 1n “£‘he case of Modhyo Pradesh Roman Vikre‘m: 5aogh and whers {were} *rhe Division Bench of f'ne High CourT of Modhyo Prodesh has raid rho? ?%e Governmem was empowered #o prepare a scheme under Am‘icie 162 of +‘ne Consfi‘ru‘rioh of Endio, ho? in absence of any enobiing Drovisions under “ride Confroi Order} especiaiiy douse 2 (d) wh§ch only defines ‘(a‘overomeh‘r ' Scheme, fhe $fo‘re §ovemmen+ was no? empowered f0 make (my Scheme Lmo‘er ‘?he Confro! Order end any Scheme so mode under Ar‘l'écie 162 of ‘fhe Conshm‘rion of India may be For disfrhibu’rion of food Sifuffs‘ bin was ram“ fhe Scheme mder the Cos’m‘oi Order: 'l‘herefora vio§aTion of any ciause of such Scheme dbes no’r coma under vioimion of fhe Comml Order and sama was nof punishabie under Sec’rion 7 0‘? The Act WMie considering fhe scope of making The Scheme and competency ‘fo make sue?! Scheme by ‘t‘ne STaTe Government ‘;*he Apex Cour? held m The case of Aéadhya Pradash Rwéan Wkrem 5angh $ociety and e‘mers e?c.(supm) “rm“? fne Scheme was no? framed under fhe Com-r03 Order and in absence of any emb§ing provision for making such Scheme in ’rhe Con'i’roi Order, ’rhe MP. (Foodsfuf'fs) Civii Supplies Public Disiribu‘mn Scheme, 1981 was no? formuia’red by fine Smfe Government under clause 2 {d} of file. Conmroi 0rder, 'ihe same was formuia‘i’ed under Ar‘iicle 162 of The Consi‘i‘iu‘l‘ion of indie. In ‘rhe case 01F Wakosh {supra}, the Madhya Prades'n Sewagoinik Puri+ Vi‘mram Scheme] 1991 (anoiher Scheme) was under chaiienge before The Apex Cour? in which fine Apex Cour? has remifi‘ed fine case “(o miie High Cour‘r For considera‘rion offer obminin The copy of such Coniroi Order from fhe parries. .In 'rhe insfcm? case: af’rer amendmen‘r in The Confroi Order by way of ciause 4 of The Confroi Order, ’rhe S‘I'afe Oovernmem" was empowered “to make The Scheme in exercise of fhe power conferred under clause 4 of i fhe Confrol Order, os such; The S’mfe Goverhmenf has formulafed “rhe Chhaf‘risgorh (Food Sfuffs) Civil Supply Public Dis‘rribufion Scheme, 1991. The Scheme so formulo‘red is o Scheme made under fhe Confrol Order and violm'ion of such Scheme is violationof The Confrol Order, fherefore: any such violofion of ‘l‘he said Scheme is viola‘iion of The Confrol Order issued in ferms of Section 3 of The Acf which is punishable under Secfion 7 of the Aci’. Affer decision in fhe cases of Modhyo Prodesh Roiion Vihr’efo, Sonqh and ofhers {supra}. 8i Modhyo Pradesh Rafion Vikre-m Songh 5ocie‘l’y and others efc.(supra)i The Store Governmen’r’hos amended The Confrol Order and mode suifoble provisions for making of ihe Scheme in Terms of clause 4 of The Confrol Order for which fhe Oovernmenf was compefenf To amend. g 11. Fm" f‘rie faregoina reasons Heaahw or- Irreauiamw m framlm charge uumshabie undar 5erhom }’ 03" The Ad l do no1’ ‘Fmd any subsfance m ’rhw msfan? wh‘hom same Is Iabie ’ro Ho dismissed and I: ‘3 acenrdmgiy, d:sm;ssed. learned Cour? bebw baa no? comm! Tea any 50mm Sdl- ‘_ ’ T. P. Sharmg lbw; Judge