IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6363 OF 2009 Between: Jangala Madhu Kutumba Srinivas. ..... PETITIONER. AND The State of A.P., Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. ..... RESPONDENT. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.139 of 2009 on the file of Kankipadu police station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. J.U.M.V. PRASAD, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent, the Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6363 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the learned Public prosecutor for the sole respondent. The petitioner is facing allegations of being involved in offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.139 of 2009 on the file of Kankipadu police station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. The crime was registered on the allegation that the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Public Distribution System) Kankipadu, conducted an inspection at the subject premises on 06-07-2009 when the petitioner herein appeared to have escaped from the scene and materials were located at the scene of offence indicating Clandestine business of unauthorised transport, filling and selling of domestic liquified petroleum gas. The crime is admittedly under investigation. The petitioner firstly contends that a prosecution is unsustainable in respect of the alleged offences under Section 420 of the I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, simultaneously. The decision reported in Asharful Haque and, others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others[1] is relied on and that was a case where the learned Judge opined that the special Act will prevail upon the general law and therefore in the presence of a special Act and specific provision of independent law, cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is not maintainable. While the decision cited is only of persuasive value and not a binding precedent, it is also to be seen that it was the cognizance of the offences under both the general and special laws that was found fault with by the learned Judge, whereas in the present case, the said offences under Section 420 of I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act were only indicated as possible offences in the first information report and only at the conclusion of the investigation and on the filing of the final report by the police that it will be concluded as to what offence is specifically attributed to the petitioner, the legality of which can be always subject to challenge by the petitioner. The petitioner also objects to the Criminal proceedings on the ground that what control order under the Essential Commodities Act was violated was not specified so far. The report of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Public Distribution System) stated that the Liquified petroleum gas (Regulation of supply and distribution) order 2000 was allegedly violated and the further investigation may zero in on the issues of exact control order that was violated and the appropriate authority that should investigate into or prosecute such offences. The allegations against the petitioner cannot be exfacie said to be such as not disclosing even remotely the possibility of his involvement in any culpable conduct and under such circumstances premature termination of the investigation by the statutory investigating agency cannot be considered to be in the interests of justice. The offences alleged are against the societal interest and also appear to involve, if true, an activity which may turnout to be dangerous to public safety and therefore it is not a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction, available in the rarest of rare cases should be invoked. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed but further investigation into the alleged offences and any further proceedings shall be uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18-08-2009. Dsh. [1] I 2007 C.C.R. 248.