HC dismisses Punjab’s plea against acquittal of Rice Mill owner in cheating case
According to the FIR, in 2004-05, Punjab Agro Food Corporation allotted paddy for shelling to GB Rice Mill owned by respondent, Gurminder Singh.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) dismissed the revision petition of Punjab challenging an acquittal by a Sessions Court of Patiala of a Rice Mill owner, who had allegedly cheated the state of Rs 1.03 crore. The Bench of Justice Aman Chaudhary observed, “In order to attract the ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be an intention to deceive from the very inception, which the prosecution miserably failed to prove.”
According to the FIR, in 2004-05, Punjab Agro Food Corporation allotted paddy for shelling to GB Rice Mill owned by respondent, Gurminder Singh. On October 16, 2004, an agreement to this effect was executed whereby the respondent’s firm was allotted 93,335 bags of paddy with 35 kg of the grain each, which were to be stored in the mill. As per a clause, the firm was required to supply the entire rice by March 2005. While the paddy was delivered on November 18, 2004 to the mill, the respondent failed to deliver it within the stipulated period, thus amounting to loses of Rs 1.03 crore.
As per the Prosecution, the respondent violated the terms of agreement by keeping rice in an unauthorised manner. On June 23, 2005, a complaint was filed by the District Manager against the respondent to the SSP for the said violation and thus, the respondent allegedly caused a loss of Rs 1.03 to the Corporation. Subsequently, an FIR was registered on October 14, 2005, under Section 420 and 406 of IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act against the respondent.
The trial court acquitted the respondent of the charges, following which, the state filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, which was also dismissed on January 10, 2013, affirming judgment of the trial court. Subsequently, Punjab filed an appeal in the HC against the Additional Sessions Judge order.
While counsel for the state Kamalpreet Bawa said that court didn’t correctly appreciate the statements of the witnesses or the evidence led by the prosecution and has thus, erroneously acquitted the respondent, the HC Bench held that the physical verification report produced related to the year 2001-2002 and as admitted by a member of the committee, no shortage of rice was found.
The HC added that as regards to the year 2004-2005, during which the agreement involved in the present case was entered, in is no evidence that proves shortage and thereby misappropriation.
“In order to attract the ingredients of Section 420 IPC, there must be an intention to deceive from the very inception, which the prosecution miserably failed to prove. In as much as the offence under Section 7 of the Act is concerned, the dispute regarding the agreement being arbitrable, the matter had been referred to the sole arbitrator as is reflective from documents. The evidence fell short of proving the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt,” the Bench added.
