Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 334 (PAT)

Radha Prasad Bhagat v. State Of Bihar

2002-03-11

B.N.P.SINGH

body2002
Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. Though the appellant was prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for violation of clause 3 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order 1984, and also clauses 3 (a) and 7 of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices & Stocks).Order, 1977, he suffered conviction only for violation of clause 3(a) of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices & Stocks) Order, 1977 on exoneration of the charges of former and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months. 2. The factual matrixthe business premises of the appellant was allegedly inspected by Shri Shobha Kant Mishra, the then Marketing Officer (P.W. 5) in presence of other officials and it was found that ten quintals of maize and 30 quintals of wheat were kept in the business premises for which neither licence stock register or other allied papers were ever produced before the Inspecting authority. It was also noticed that the appeflant had not displayed the Board for exhibition of stock and price position. After the Police was set in motion, investigation commenced, on conclusion of which the Police laid charge sheet before the Court and the appellant was eventually put on trial. In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether six witnesses including the Reporting Officer. The defence of the appellant before the trial court and also this Court was failure of the prosecution to establish violation of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and also the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices & Stocks) Order, 1977 and the trial court while negativing the contention raised on behalf of the appellant finding the appellant not guilty of the former charges, convicted him of the latter charges and sentenced him in the manner stated above which is being challenged in this appeal. 3. Volume of arguments were pressed into service on behalf of the appellant to assail the findings recorded by: the trial court and it is sought to be urged that since by virtue of the notification issued by the Government on 17th October, 1985, with regard to the. 3. Volume of arguments were pressed into service on behalf of the appellant to assail the findings recorded by: the trial court and it is sought to be urged that since by virtue of the notification issued by the Government on 17th October, 1985, with regard to the. Bihar Trade Articles (Licence Unification) Order, 1984, no stock limit was prescribed for the storage, of wheat nor the appellant was found to have stored maize beyond the prescribed limit, any omission on the part, of the appellant to display the stock and price position on the Board would not constitute violation of clause 3(a) of the Bihar Essential. Articles (Display of Prices & Stocks) Order, 1.977 The other limb of argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant was that though the appellant was found guilty for his failure to display stock position, and prices thereof on the Board at a conspicuous place of the business premises, it would appear from the statement of the appellant recorded by the Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that such evidence, if at all operates adverse to the appellant, was never put to him to afford him an opportunity to explain the accusation attributed to him and since this vital piece of evidence was not put before the appellant during his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that evidence could not have been used by the Court to find the appellant guilty. In quick succession, it is sought to be urged that it hardly needs to be emphasised that the object of placing the evidence operating adverse to the accused was to afford opportunity to the accused to explain the same and the last iimb of argument canvassed on bahalf of the appellant was that though the incident allegedly took place on 22.6.1985, it is not in dispute that the cognizance was taken by the Court on 19.5.1989 after efflux of more than three years and, hence, the cognizance too was barred by virtue of operation of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on these premises, it is urged that not only the trial of the appellant by virtue of the cognizance being time barred, was bad but even the subsequent proceeding had vitiated on that account. On the pointed question as to whether this argument will be available to the appellant at this belated stage when the order of cognizance was not assailed before any authority, the learned counsel would place reliance on a decision of the Apex Court of the land reported in 1981 Cr.LJ. 722 (State of Punjab vs. Sarwan Singh). 4. On consideration of the agruments canvassed on behalf of the appellant, it can be noticed that since the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 was not workable on the day of the incident, rightly no mens rea can be attributed to the appellant for his failure to display stock position on a conspicuous place of the business premises. Even though the appellant was found guilty for violation of the provision of Section 3(a) of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices & Stocks) Order, 1977, the evidence operating adverse to the appellant on this ground was admittedly not put before the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, hence, the evidence on this score could not have been used against him to render the verdict of guilt by the trial court and hence, since the cognizance was a belated exercise of the Court by virtue of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, not only the cognizance but even the subsequent proceeding had vitiated and in these premises, I am constrained to hold that the finding recorded by the trial court could not be sustained in law which is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against his. He is discharged from the liability of the bail bounds. This appeal is accordingly allowed.