Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 663 (CAL)

Jugal Kishore Agarwala v. State of West Bengal

2001-10-12

PRADIP KUMAR BISWAS

body2001
JUDGMENT Pradip Kumar Biswas, J. 1. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the instance of the accused Jugal Kishore Agarwala, seeking to quash the proceeding of the E.C. Case No. 22/99 arising out of Samserganj Police Station Case No. 87 of 1999 dated 7.7.1999 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Act X/55 pending before the Court of the learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act, Murshidabad. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, arising out of this application, may be narrated as under: Jugal Kishore Agarwala, the petitioner herein, is one of the Proprietors of Satyanarayan Rice and Atta Mills situated at Gazole in the District of Malda. The petitioner is having valid sugar licence being Licence No. 80/Sug./GL/ 87 which was valid upto 31.12.2000. 3. One Bimal Kumar Saha, S.L of Police (D.E.O.), Dhuliyan lodged a written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Samserganj Police Station alleging therein that on 7.7.1999 at about 14-05 hrs., he along with S.L, G.C. Dey, D.E.O., Beldanga, W.C., Dastur Azim, W.C. 467, Radha Pada Pramanik and other available forces had been to New Dakbanglow More on NH 34 under Samserganj P.S., for holding raid against the illegal traders of Essential Commodities and in course of such raid, they intercepted one truck bearing No. WB 23-0686 loaded with sugar which was proceeding towards Farakka from Omarpur side. After disclosing his identity, the complainant demanded papers from the driver of the truck, namely Israil Sk., opposite party No.2 and O.P. No.2 produced the papers, challan etc., in respect of 300 bags of sugar (each bag containing 50 kgs.) weighing 150 quintals. But the aforesaid driver failed to produce any license in connection with the above-noted sugar in respect of both the consignor, Stephen Commerce Private Ltd., 38, Armenian Street, Calcutta and the consignee, Satya Narayan Rice and Atta Mills of Gazole, District Malda. Due to the aforesaid reason, it was stated in the complaint that the O.P. No.2 violated the provision of the para 3 of the West Bengal Sugar Dealers'Licensing Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Order, 1980) and as such he is liable for prosecution under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Act X/55. Due to the aforesaid reason, it was stated in the complaint that the O.P. No.2 violated the provision of the para 3 of the West Bengal Sugar Dealers'Licensing Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Order, 1980) and as such he is liable for prosecution under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Act X/55. The complainant seized 150 quintals of sugar and the involved truck along with connected papers of sugar under appropriate seizure list and the seized sugar was kept under one Sajahan Sk., of Dhulian, P. S. Samserganj, after obtaining a proper Zimbanama. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, Samserganj P.S. Case No. 87/99 dated 7.7.1999, E.C. Case No. 22/99 under section 7(1) (a)(ii) of the Act X/55 was started by Officer-in-Charge, Samserganj P.S., and after completion of investigation, the present petitioner and O.P. No.2 have been chargesheeted by the police. 5. The petitioner duly appeared before the court and was released on bail by the concerned court. Meanwhile, the petitioner preferred an application praying for the return of the seized sugar before the concerned court and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jangipur by his order dated 19.7.1999 was pleased to release the said sugar provisionally on furnishing a bond of Rs. 2,25,000/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand) with one lawyer's surety. 6. In the instant application, the petitioner has alleged that the charge as contained in the charge-sheet does not lie against the present petitioner since he has not contravened and/or violated any provision of para 3 of the Order 1980 as there was valid paper to show that M/s. Stephen Commerce Private Ltd., sold the aforesaid sugar to M/s. Satya Narayan Rice and Atta Mills that the said sugar was being carried by the aforesaid truck with appropriate road challan and papers and that the consignor M/s. Stephen Commerce Pvt. Ltd., had valid licence in respect of the business of the sugar and as such if this proceeding is allowed to be continued and/or to proceed further that will be certainly a mere abuse of the process of law. Hence, by filing this application, the petitioner has come up with the aforesaid relief. 7. I have had the opportunity of hearing the learned counsels appearing for both the parties in confection with the present matter at length. Hence, by filing this application, the petitioner has come up with the aforesaid relief. 7. I have had the opportunity of hearing the learned counsels appearing for both the parties in confection with the present matter at length. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken me through the certified copy of the F.I.R., and has submitted before me that the main thrust of the allegation in the written complaint is that the driver of the concerned truck has failed to produce any licence of the above noted sugar in respect of both the consignor and the consignee and as such there has been violation of the para 3 of the Order, 1980 but, according to him since the consignor and consignee were carrying on the aforesaid business on the strength of the valid licence, there was no reason for proceeding with this case against them and the continuation of the present proceeding, on such allegation, in the written complaint, was certainly a mere abuse of the process of law and if it is allowed to continue further, there will be a serious miscarriage of justice. 8. The learned A.P.P., Mr. S. Moitra appearing for the O.P./State in opposing the claim of the petitioner, has submitted before me that it is quite established principle of law that the necessary power to quash the criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases to prevent the abuse of the process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and such power cannot be exercised to stiffle the legitimate prosecution. He has further submitted that where the F.I.R., or petition of complaint does not disclose any offence or is otherwise frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, it is open to the High Court to interfere under section 482 of Cr. P.C and to quash the criminal proceeding pending before the subordinate court. 9. Sri Moitra, the learned Addl. He has further submitted that where the F.I.R., or petition of complaint does not disclose any offence or is otherwise frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, it is open to the High Court to interfere under section 482 of Cr. P.C and to quash the criminal proceeding pending before the subordinate court. 9. Sri Moitra, the learned Addl. P.P./drawing my attention to the para 11 of the Order, 1980 specially sub-paras (a) and (d) of the aforesaid Order, 1980 together with condition No.4 of the licence of the petitioner, copy of which has been kept in the record, has submitted before me that as per the condition of the licence, it is quite mandatory for the licensee, if he is a dealer to issue to every customer cash memo or receipt, as the case may be, containing the name and address and licence No. of the licensee as also the name and address and licence No., if any, of the customer, the date of transaction, the quantity of sugar sold, the price per quintal of the total amount charged and the licensee shall have to keep duplicate of the same for inspection on demand by any officer authorized in this behalf by the licensing authority and the receipt to be issued in this regard should be machine numbered and the numbering should be arranged serially. But, none of the kind has been produced in connection with the present case, either by the driver or by the present petitioner. 10. Sri Moitra has contended further that in the instant case allegation has been levelled for violation of para-3 of the Order, 1980 which broadly deals with the 'Regulation of business in sugar' and as an inevitable consequence the violation regarding condition of licence as envisaged in para-11 of Order, 1980 would come in for consideration of the court and it has to be decided only at the trial stage upon assessing the evidence and materials on record by the Trial Judge as to whether there has been such violation or not and High Court in exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code cannot embark upon such enquiry. 11. 11. He has further contended that the allegations in the written complaint together with the materials collected are sufficient enough to conclude that there were prima facie materials against the present petitioner and upon such premises quashing of the present proceeding is not at all permissible. 12. This contention of the learned Addl. P.P., was sought to be refuted on behalf of the petitioner by alleging that the petition of complaint itself does not disclose any such allegation, so there is no reason to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned Addl. P.P., that there has been such violation and the prosecution at this stage cannot shift their case patently on such allegation, that the condition of the licence has been violated, although such case has not been introduced in the written complaint. 13. I have given my anxious consideration over the submissions made by the rival parties before me. 14. It is now settled principle of law that the court, while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the proceeding, should not embark upon any enquiry as to the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegation made in the petition of complaint or with regard to the collected materials. 15. It is now quite well settled that the court is invested with plenary powers to quash the criminal proceeding pending before any court subordinate to it where it appears that the allegations incorporated in the F.I.R., or in the petition of complaint or in the collected materials, even when they are taken on their face value and accepted on their entirety, do not constitute any cognizable offence and in exercising such power, the High Court is not required to probe into any question as to whether the materials or allegations constituting the offence are trustworthy or not. It is again not necessary that a complainant should re-produce in the body of the complaint all the ingredients of an offence verbatim and it is also well settled when the petition of complaint and the annexed documents made out a prima facie case the High Court cannot enter into a debatable area as to which of the two versions of the parties is true. 16. 16. Keeping in mind the above settled principles of law and upon perusal of the written complaint and the materials, collected in course of investigation and incorporated in the chargesheet, I am rather inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned Addl. P.P., in preference to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Consequently, I have no hesitation to hold that those papers, as mentioned above, have established a prime facie case against the present petitioner about his involvement in the alleged crime. Therefore, there is no question for quashing the instant criminal proceeding arosing out of Samserganj P.S. Case No. 87 of 1999 dated 7.7.99 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Act X of 1955 pending before the court of the learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act, Murshidabad. 17. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any justifiable reason for quashing the instant criminal proceeding as sought for by the petitioner, as I am of the clear opinion that the materials on record have made out a prima facie case against the present petitioner regarding his involvement with the concerned crime. 18. The instant criminal revisional application is accordingly dismissed. 19. The learned court below is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 20. This revisional application is, thus, disposed of accordingly. 21. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned court below for information and necessary compliance. Revisional application dismissed.