Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 80 (CAL)

Ram Abatar Agarwala v. State of West Bengal

2002-02-08

Pradip Kumar Biswas

body2002
JUDGMENT : - Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.: This is an application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code at the instance of the accused Ram Abatar Agarwala seeking to quash the proceeding of E.C. Case No. 40 of 1999 arising out of Raghunathganj Police Station Case No. 138 of 1999 dated 25.6.99 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act X/55 pending before the court of learned Judge, Special Court, E. C. Act, Murshidabad. 2. The short facts leading to the filing of the present revisional application may be stated as under:- 3. Ram Abatar Agarwala, the petitioner herein, is one of the partners of Satya Narayan Rice and Atta Mills situated at Gazole, in the district of Malda. The petitioner's firm is having valid rice licence being Licence No. 18/GL/B-2/ 98 which was valid upto 17-12-99. 4. One Bimal Kumar Saha, Sub-Inspector of Police, DEO, Dhulian lodged a written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Raghunathganj Police Station that on 25-6-99 at about 11-15 hrs, he along with W. C. 25, Dastur Azim and force had been to Omarpur More on NH 34 under Raghunathganj Police Station for holding raid against the illegal Rice Traders and intercepted one Lorry being No. WMK-7277 which was proceeding from Farakka side to Moregram side. 5. On checking it was found that the said lorry was loaded with rice and the driver of the said lorry Dipak Royi. e., opposite party No.2 claimed that he was the driver of the above truck and he was proceeding to Burdwan from Gazole. It was further alleged that on demand, the driver Dipak Roy produced the paper, challan, cash memo etc., in respect of 130 quintals of A/C Rice in 130 bags, each bag containing 100 kgs. But the aforesaid driver failed to produce any licence of the consignee, Dakania Traders of Jamuria although he could produce licence of the consignor, Ram Abatar Agarwala i.e., the accused petitioner. Hence, the driver violated the provision of para-3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Control) Order, 1997 and is liable for prosecution under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act X/55. Hence, the driver violated the provision of para-3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Control) Order, 1997 and is liable for prosecution under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act X/55. The complainant seized the said 130 quintals of A/C Rice in 130 bags and the involved truck with all connected papers along with other connected papers, challan, cash memo etc., in respect of rice after preparing proper seizure list and thereafter the complainant kept the said 130 quintals of NC Rice in 130 bags in the Zimma of Motilal Chandra of Raghunathganj after obtaining proper Zimmanama. 6. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the Raghunathganj Police Station Case No. 138 of 1999 dated 25.6.99, E.C. Case No. 40 of 1999 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Act X/55 was started by the Officer-in-Charge, Raghunathganj Police Station and after completion of the investigation, the present petitioner and the opposite party No.2 have been charge-sheeted by the police. The petitioner fully surrendered before the learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act, Murshidabad on 25.02.2000 and was released on bail by the concerned court. 7. Meanwhile, the petitioner made a claim for return of the seized rice before the concerned court and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jangipur by his order dated 2.7.99 was pleased to release the said rice provisionally on furnishing a bond of Rs. one lakh with one lawyer's surety. 8. By filing the instant application, the petitioner had alleged that the charge as contained in the charge-sheet does not at all lie against the petitioner since he has not contravened and/or violated any provisions of Para-3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Control) Order, 1997 as the petitioner had valid A/C rice licence which was valid upto 17.12.99 and that the consignee, Dakania Traders of Jamuria had also valid licence of A/C rice being No. 242/Dealer/ Jamuria/D. C./BDN/99 which was valid upto 23.3.2000 and as such there is no violation whatsoever of the Para 3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Control) Order, 1997. 9. According to the petitioner, there was no reason whatsoever for proceeding with this case against him and the continuation of the present proceeding would be certainly a mere abuse of the process of the court and this prosecution has been launched against him only with a view to harass and humuliate the present petitioner. Hence, this application for seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 10. Hence, this application for seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 10. I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. S. S. Roy, appearing for the petitioner. No one, however, has appeared on behalf of the opposite party. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the First Information Report annexed to the petition as annexure P-1 and in this connection, he has further contended that the main thrust of the prosecution allegation is that the driver of the concerned truck could although produce papers, challan, cash memo and one xerox copy of the licence of consignor, Ram Abatar Agarwala, yet, he failed to produce any licence or valid papers with regard to the licence of consignee, M/s. Dakania Traders of Jamuria and as such there has been violation of the para 3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Control) Order, 1997 as the driver of the concerned truck was carrying the rice for illegal purpose of business. 11. It has further been contended that the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, as it appears, has clearly established that the consignor had valid licence for dealing with rice and the order of the confiscating authority has also revealed that there was valid licence of the consignee also for dealing with such rice and upon such established facts, there was no reason for proceeding with this case against this accused petitioner and others and the continuation of the present proceeding, on such allegation, would be a mere abuse of the process of the court and if such proceeding is allowed to be continued further, there will be a serious miscarriage of justice. 12. He has further forcefully contended that upon such allegation, as above, the present proceeding cannot be maintained against this petitioner at least when patently he had valid licence for dealing with rice. 13. I have given my anxious consideration with regard to the submissions• made by Sri Roy on behalf of the accused petitioner. 14. 12. He has further forcefully contended that upon such allegation, as above, the present proceeding cannot be maintained against this petitioner at least when patently he had valid licence for dealing with rice. 13. I have given my anxious consideration with regard to the submissions• made by Sri Roy on behalf of the accused petitioner. 14. It is quite well settled principles of law that the court is invested with plenary power 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, without adding or subtracting anything from it, 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. 15. It is again not necessary that the complaint should reproduce 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. Here, in this case, the main allegation is that there was violation of para 3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Control) Order, 1997 and for proper application of this case, para 3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Control) Order, 1997 may be reproduced here as under:- "Regulation of business in rice and paddy.- No person shall carryon business in rice or paddy as a dealer except under and in accordance with a licence granted under this order: Provided that bulk consumer shall obtain a registration certificate in Form 'c' in lieu of the licence: Provided further that no producer shall sell paddy to any person other than a dealer". 17. 17. Reading the aforesaid provisions of laws, specially paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Control) Order, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Order of 1997'), it is seen that paragraph 3 of Order of 1997 broadly deals with the 'Regulation of business in rice and paddy' and looking into the copy of the annexed licence, it is further seen that in dealing with such type of cases, as an inevitable consequence, the violation regarding condition of licence as envisaged in para 3 of Order of 1997 would come up for consideration of the court and such matters had have to be decided only at the trial stage upon assessing the evidence on record by the trial court and to see as to whether there has been any such violation or not in respect of any conditions as embodied in the licence granted to the petitioner and the consignee and the High Court in exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code should not and cannot embark upon such an enquiry at this stage. 18. Now, in view of what I have stated above, I am rather prompted to hold that on the available materials, it cannot be said that there was no prima facie case, against the present petitioner about his involvement in the alleged crime. 19. Therefore, the question for quashing of the instant criminal proceeding arose out of Raghunathganj Police Station Case No. 138 of 1999 dated 25-6-99 under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Act X/55 pending before the court of learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act, does not and cannot arise at all. 20. In view of the foregoing, I find no sufficient merit in the present revisional application. 21. The instant revisional application is, therefore, dismissed. 22. Thus, the matter is disposed of accordingly. The interim order, if there be any, stands vacated. 23. The learned court below is directed to proceed with this case in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 24. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned court below for information and necessary compliance. Revisional application dismissed.