1996 (2) TMI 598 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Definition and applicability of the term "dealer" under the U.P. Oil Seeds and Oilseeds Products Control Order, 1966, and the Pulses, Edible Oil-seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977.
2. Requirement of a license for storing edible oils for manufacturing purposes.
3. Validity of the High Court's quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition and Applicability of the Term "Dealer":
The primary issue revolves around whether the respondent qualifies as a "dealer" under the U.P. Oil Seeds and Oilseeds Products Control Order, 1966, and the Pulses, Edible Oil-seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977. According to Clause 2(g) of the 1966 Order, a "dealer" is defined as a person engaged in the business of purchase or sale or storage for sale of oil seeds and oilseeds products. Similarly, Clause 2(f) of the 1977 Order defines a "dealer" as a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale, or storage for sale of any pulses, edible oil seeds, or edible oils. The Court concluded that even if the respondent stored oils for manufacturing paints and varnish, he still qualifies as a dealer because he stored quantities exceeding the prescribed limits. The Court referenced the case of State of A.P. v. Abdul Bakhi & Bros., where it was held that storing commodities for manufacturing purposes still qualifies one as a dealer.

2. Requirement of a License for Storing Edible Oils:
The Court examined whether the respondent needed a license for storing edible oils used in manufacturing. Both Orders mandate that no person shall carry on business as a dealer in edible oilseeds or oils without a license if their stock exceeds specified quantities. The respondent did not possess a license and stored substantial quantities of soyabean oil, castor oil, and refined soyabean oil, which are categorized as edible oils. Thus, the respondent was in violation of the Orders, making him liable to be prosecuted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. Validity of the High Court's Quashing of the FIR:
The High Court had quashed the FIR on the basis that the respondent was not a dealer in oil seeds or edible oils. The Supreme Court found this to be incorrect, stating that the High Court misinterpreted the definition of "dealer." The Court emphasized that the FIR contained all necessary ingredients of the offense, including the storage of oils without a license. The Court referenced previous judgments, including State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pirthi Chand and Anr., and State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, to highlight that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold, thereby thwarting the prosecution process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation within four weeks. The appropriate Court was instructed to dispose of the case within six months. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal definitions and procedural requirements, particularly in cases involving economic offenses.