Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 601 (PAT)

Ramesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2000-04-20

P.K.SINHA

body2000
Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner Ramesh Kumar praying therein to quash the criminal prosecution pending against him in case No.C II 1/ of 1994 under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act ("the Act" in short) including order taking cognizance, dated 30.3.1994 recorded by Special Judge, E.C.Act at Katihar. 2. Briefly stated, a complaint petition (Annexure-1) was filed in the court of the Special Judge for E.C.Act cases at Katihar by one Tarun Chandra Mishra, Block Supply Officer of Barari stating therein that on 24.3.1994 under the supervision of District Supply Officer, Katihar, business premises of Satyanarayan Azad, a Fair Price Shopkeeper under Public Distribution System, (father of the petitioner) was inspected and it was found that the shop was not working. It was also alleged that the said Satyanarayan Azad was also running a Grocery shop by the side of the Fair Price Shop. 3. Further allegations relate as to how the Grocery shop as well the Fair Price Shop were checked by the officials in presence of this petitioner who was present there, and how sugar and kerosene oil were found therein, but this petitioner did not produce the books of account in connection with the Fair Price, on the pretext that the same were kept with the licensee. 4. In the grocery shop also 18 bags of sugar and 888 litres of kerosene oil were found which were controlled commodities. 5. In the complaint petition it was complained that this petitioner was managing the affairs of the shop but on demand did not produce retail sugar dealers licence except three cach memos which have been discussed in the complaint petition. Ultimately it was found, as per para 3 of the complaint petition, that "Satyanarain Azad has stored 18 qtls. of sugar for the purpose of sale without any valid licence (grocery shop)". Same was observed about recovery of K.Oil from the grocery shop. 6. Ultimately it was found, as per para 3 of the complaint petition, that "Satyanarain Azad has stored 18 qtls. of sugar for the purpose of sale without any valid licence (grocery shop)". Same was observed about recovery of K.Oil from the grocery shop. 6. The contention of Mr.N.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the complainant in the complaint petition itself had claimed that it was Satyanarayan Azad who was licensee of fair price shop and it was he who also owned the grocery shop, hence this petitioner by mere chance of his having been found at the shop could not be held guilty of any offence said to have been committed under section 7 of the Act as he was neither licensee nor the grocery shop has been claimed to be belonging to him. 7. In the complaint petition I find that, while summing up the complainants claim, it was stated that Ramesh Kumar did not accord facility of inspection of books and accounts pertaining to the fair price shop in violation of condition 9 of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and conditions 1, 7, 8 and 9 of the agreement executed by Satyanarayan Azad as fair price shop keeper. As already seen it was also alleged that sugar and kerosene oil were being stored for sale in the grocery shop without any licence, which was punishable under the provision of the Act. 8. From the complaint petition iself it will appear to be the clear case of the complainant that both the shops belonged to Satyanarayan Azad. Apart from what already has been mentioned above, I find that in the complaint petition it was clearly alleged that "possession of K.Oil by Satyanarayan Azad in his grocery shop is clear indicative of sugar (sic) that he is engaged in clandestine trace of kerosene oil.......". 9. Though it has been claimed in the beginning of the complaint petition that the petitioner was managing the affairs of the grocery shop, it has been clarified subsequently that Ramesh Kumar the petitioner was managing the affairs of the shop at the moment of verification. 10. Subsequently in the complaint petition this petitioner along with Satyanarayan Azad was also accused of making wrong display in the fair price shop as well in grocery shop where the stock had not been displayed at all. 11. 10. Subsequently in the complaint petition this petitioner along with Satyanarayan Azad was also accused of making wrong display in the fair price shop as well in grocery shop where the stock had not been displayed at all. 11. In the entire complaint petition it has nowhere been even suggested that this petitioner was in any way owner or proprietor of the fair price shop, rather it has been clearly alleged that it was Satyanarayan Azad who was owning the grocery shop also. Obviously for any irregularity committed in connection with the fair price shop only the licensee could be held responsible. 12. In my opinion simply having alleged that the petitioner at the time of verification was managing the shop would not make him criminally liable for having committed any offence in violation of the provisions of the Act or the orders issued therein when it is clear case of complainant that the grocery shop belonged to the other accused. 13. Learned counsel for the State conceded that in view of the allegation in the complaint petition cognizance of the offence could not have been taken against this petitioner. 14. In the result, this petition is allowed and the criminal prosecution in case No. C II 1/of 1994 pending in the court of Special Judge, E.C.Act, Katihar is hereby quashed in so far as the prosecution against this petitioner is concerned. 15. The order of this court by which the proceeding in special court was stayed is hereby vacated in so far the accused Satyanarayan Azad is concerned.