### Criminal Liability Cannot Be Fastened Based on Official Designation Without Specific Evidence of Statutory Contravention

The petitioner, serving as the Secretary of Village Panchayat Deharikala, challenged the registration of FIR No. 133/2017 at Police Station Aron under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The prosecution alleged irregularities at a Government Fair Price Shop where essential commodities were diverted to unauthorized persons using ration slips of genuine beneficiaries.

Following a preliminary enquiry, the vendor (Vinod Jatav) was removed, and the petitioner was implicated despite his written denials to prior show-cause notices issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer and CEO.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashment of the FIR, contending he had no direct role in the shop’s operations.

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner constitute an abuse of the process of law in the absence of specific allegations of active participation.

2. Whether a Village Panchayat Secretary can be held vicariously liable for the mismanagement of a fair price shop under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which grants inherent power to quash proceedings if the FIR, taken at face value, does not disclose a cognizable offence.

It relied on Clause 11(8) of the PDS Control Order, 2015, which specifically mandates the responsibilities of the "salesperson" regarding commodity distribution.

Centrally, the Court followed the precedent in *Ramesh Chand Garg v. State of M.P. (2002)*, establishing that a penalty under Section 7 of the EC Act requires a clear, demonstrable violation of an order issued under Section 3 of the Act.

The Court observed that the FIR primarily targeted irregularities in the physical distribution of grains, for which the vendor/salesperson is legally responsible under Clause 11(8) of the PDS Control Order.

It noted that the prosecution failed to provide material evidence showing the petitioner was the salesperson or that he had issued directions facilitating the illegal diversion.

The Court reasoned that criminal liability cannot be fastened upon an individual solely based on their official designation (Secretary) without specific evidence of an act or omission.

Furthermore, since the preliminary enquiry and FIR failed to link the petitioner to a specific contravention of Section 3 of the EC Act, the foundational requirements for an offence under Section 7 were missing.

Consequently, the petition was allowed, and FIR No. 133/2017, along with all consequential proceedings relating to the petitioner, was quashed.