Narain Prasad Saraf v. State of Bihar — 1980 DIGILAW 202 (PAT)

JUDGMENT : B.S. Sinha & Manoranjan Pd., JJ. This application has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge and that is how it has come before us. 2. The prayer in this application is to quash the cognizance taken and the processes issued against the petitioner Narayan Prasad Saraf by an ORDER :18.12.1971 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bhagalpur in P.S. Case no. 342 of 1971. By the impugned ORDER :, processes have been issued against the petitioner under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation and contravention of Clauses 4 and 6 of the Bihar Essential Commodities other than Food Grains Control ORDER :, 1967. 3. The relevant facts appear to be that, on 8.12.71, the Assistant District Supply Officer, Bhagalpur alongwith Shri B. Prasad, S.D.O., and Shri Kapildeo Prasad Sinha, Sub-inspector, Bhagalpur detected certain irregularities in Messers Prakash Medical Agency, a shop situated in the Sujaganj Mohalla of Bhagalpur. It was found that the stock position and register were not displayed as required and the firm had contravened clause 4 of the ORDER :. According to the stock register and cash memo there was no stock of Amul Spray, which is a baby food, but on verification nine tins of Amul Baby Food, one tin were found which was another contravention. The contravention stated as that on 7.12.71, a peon of the Collector-ate had gone to buy Amul from the shop but he was not given the same. A complaint was filed before the Sub-divisional Magistrate by the Assistant District Supply Officer on the basis of which cognizance was taken against the petitioner and four other persons. 4. The petitioner and three other persons filed an application under section 561 (A) of the Code of Criminal Code before this Court for quashing the cognizance which was numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 114 of 1972 and was disposed of on 8.11.1975. By this ORDER :, the application for quashing by the petitioner was dismissed as withdraw while the cognizance against three others was quashed. The petitioner has now filed the second application again with the same prayer. 5. The first question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the second application now under section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973, is permissible. Mr. The petitioner has now filed the second application again with the same prayer. 5. The first question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the second application now under section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973, is permissible. Mr. Agrawal appearing for the petitioner submits that the disposal of an earlier application is no bar against the entertainment of the second application. In support of his submission learned counsel relies upon a case of Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, W. B. v. Mohan Singh and others (A.I.R. 1975, Supreme Court, 1002) in which it was observed :- "Section 561-A preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make such ORDER :s as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice and the High Court must, therefore, exercise its inherent powers having regard to the situation prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. The High Court was in the circumstances entitled to entertain the subsequent application of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and consider whether on the facts and circumstances then obtaining the continuance of the proceeding against the respondents constituted an abuse of the process of the Court or its quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice." It was further pointed out that circumstances has changed because "despite the rejection of the earlier application of the first respondent, the prosecution has failed to make any progress in the criminal case even though it was filed as far back as 1966 and the criminal case rested where it was for a period of over 1½ years.” In the case before us, Mr. Agrawal has drawn our attention to the fact that although the cognizance was taken on 18.12.197l and the criminal miscellaneous 114 of 1972 was disposed of on 8.11.1975 till 12.9.79 when the present application was filed, no progress has been made in the case. It will, therefore, be seen that in the present case even after about four years no progress has been made in the case against the petitioner. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that in the case before us the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner for such a long time without any progress, is an abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that in the case before us the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner for such a long time without any progress, is an abuse of the process of the court. We are unable to discover any satisfactory reason for not taking any further steps in the case. It appears from the lower court's records that the case is not progressing because the records had not been received from the High Court till 6.8.79. Mr. Agrawal however has produced a copy of the information given by this court which shows that the records were sent as far back as in November, 1975, to the Deputy Collector Incharge, Legal Section, of the Bhagalpur Collector-ate. Whoever be at fault for the non-receipt of the records in the court of the learned magistrate concerned, the fact remain" that no progress has been made in the case and the petitioner has been harassed for such a long time. We are, therefore, of the view that it would not be justifiable to permit the proceeding to continue against the petitioner with the end not in sight. The impugned cognizance against the petitioner is accordingly quashed and set aside, and the application is allowed.