Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 301 (PAT)

Ambika Prasad Singn v. State Of Bihar

2000-02-23

DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD

body2000
Judgment DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD, J. 1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the entire Criminal proceeding of Lower Bazar PS. Case No. 36 of 1991 including the order taking cognizance dated 9.5.1995. 2. The short facts giving rise to this application are that the Officer-in-charge Lower Bazar intercepted two trucks loaden with coal bearing registration Nos. BIN 9993 and BRO 5166. On demand, the drivers of the truck produced papers in respect of the coal loaded in the said truck. It was detected that no date has been mentioned below the signature and seal of the officer issuing the coal whereas date was found given under the signature of the officer and representative of consignee. It was further found that there was some cutting with ink but without any initials and signature. It is further alleged that the drivers of the said trucks produced challan Nos. 1352 and 1354 and there was some defects found in both the challans. Accordingly, the First Information Report was lodged for the offence under Sections 414/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the prosecution. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the offence under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code is not made out in the instant case as no where it is found either in the fardbeyan or any of the two documents that the said coal was stolen and there was no reporting about the theft of the said coal. It is also argued that the Special Judge specifically empowered under Section 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act has got no jurisdiction or power to try the cases for the offences triable in warrant trial rather, he is empowered to try the cases under Essential Commodities Act in a summary way. It is further submitted that it has no where been stated in the Notification in respect of coal as to what is the storage limit of a whole-sale dealer and retail dealer and due to which the Unification Order is not workable and as such the accused-persons/petitioners cannot be prosecuted for violation of its provisions. It is further submitted that it has no where been stated in the Notification in respect of coal as to what is the storage limit of a whole-sale dealer and retail dealer and due to which the Unification Order is not workable and as such the accused-persons/petitioners cannot be prosecuted for violation of its provisions. The learned counsel also relied upon the cases of Vijaya Kumar Agarwal v. State of Orissa and another, reported in AIR 1966 SC page 253 and ihe case of Mohan Kumar Singh and another v. State of Bihar, reported in 1998 Vol. I EFR 305. 5. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6231 of 1994 that unless storage limit for a whole-sale dealer and retail dealer is fixed, the Unification Order and violation of it, will not be workable in respect of coal. It has also been observed in the case of Ramashish Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in 1994 (2) East Cr C 291, that unless storage limit for a whole-sale dealer and retail dealer is fixed, the Unification Order will not be workable. The case in hand also indicates that the coal in question was being transported under the valid challans and there is nothing to show even in the written report that the said coal was taken for the purpose of blackmarketing. The said trucks being the public carrier were transporting the coal under the valid challans. By pointing minor defects about initials and signature of the coal issuing authority will not suffice to say that these challans are forged and not correct when there is no denial or objection made from the side of the opposite party. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstance, coupled with the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6231 of 1994 (Sidheshwar Pandey and others v. State of Bihar and others) that the storage limit of coal has not been fixed in respect of whole sale dealer and retail dealer in respect of coal and as such, there was no violation of the Unification Order. Thus, in my view, the whole prosecution initiated against the petitioners and the order dated 9.9.1995 taking cognizance against the petitioners are held to be illegal which are fit to be quashed. 7. Thus, in my view, the whole prosecution initiated against the petitioners and the order dated 9.9.1995 taking cognizance against the petitioners are held to be illegal which are fit to be quashed. 7. In the result, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings as also the order taking cognizance dated 9.5.1995 in Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 36 of 1991 against the petitioners are hereby quashed.