Essential Commodities Act | Storage Limit Prescribed In Non-Compliance Of Statutory Mandate Cannot Lead To Criminal Action: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that non-compliance with statutory requirements with respect to prescribing limit for storage of goods, cannot attract criminal liability.The observation was made while quashing multiple FIRs registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the Petitioners, over storing pulses in excess of the limit prescribed under Clause 18 of...
The Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that non-compliance with statutory requirements with respect to prescribing limit for storage of goods, cannot attract criminal liability.
The observation was made while quashing multiple FIRs registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the Petitioners, over storing pulses in excess of the limit prescribed under Clause 18 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984.
The High Court noted that Clause 18 specifies fixation of storage limit by the State Government with the "prior concurrence" of the Central Government by issuing a notification in the official Gazette.
In the instant case, none of the two requirements were fulfilled and the State Government had straightway, in the purported exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, issued the notification fixing 500 quintal as the storage limit.
Thus, the Court held that such non-compliance would automatically lead to the conclusion that on the date when the inspection was made and seizure of the pulses were effected there was no storage limit in vogue and no criminal action can be taken against the Petitioners.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed:
"The primary requirement of complying Clause 18 of the Unification Order is of prior concurrence of the Central Government and publication of the notification in the official Gazette...Neither the notification nor the counter affidavits filed by the State disclose about the compliance of the statutory requirement as envisaged under Clause 18 of the Unification Order."
Reliance was also placed on Satya Narain Prasad v. The State of Bihar, reported in 1998 PLJR 502, where it was held that the prosecution gets vitiated if the confiscation or prosecution becomes invalid on account of the fact that no licence fee has been prescribed for licenses for dealing in pulses.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed and criminal proceedings were quashed.
Case Title : Hari Shankar Agarwal v State of Jharkhand
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 83