Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 670 (JHR)

Nabi Mian v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-06-16

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2003
ORDER Harishankar Prasad, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire prosecution as well as the order taking cognizance dated 11.6.1984 in Special Case No. 81/1983 corresponding of G.R. No. 53/1984 arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 0063/1983 dated 21.11.1983 registered under Section 7/9 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that Supply Inspector Ram Prasad Singh with Cricle Officer visited the shop of the petitioner. At that time, shop keeper was not present and in his absence, a search was made in presence of his maternal uncle Shideque Mian. Seizures were made. In the shop there was one quintal 76 kg. sugar only available and there was no stock of wheat and rice. The shop keeper had lifted two quintal of wheat, one quintal of rice and three quintal of sugar on 27.7.1983 and 28.7.1983 respectively out of which two quintal of wheat, one quintal of rice and one quintal of sugar were sold in black market before brining the same to the shop. There was a display board in the shop but that display board did not display the quantity of these articles. It is further stated in the FIR that seven consumers were contacted out of whom, six have stated that no receipt is granted to them and sugar is sold @ Rs. 4.00 per Kg. and other allegations were made. On the basis of this written report, an FIR bearing Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 0063/1983 dated 21.11.1983 was registered under Section 7/9 of the Essential Commodities Act and after investigation, police submitted charge- sheet and learned Court below was pleased to take cognizance in the matter. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that cognizance taken on the basis of submission of charge-sheet is bad in law because charge- sheet does not disclose any offence and there must be a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence. 4. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the learned Court below took cognizance of the case solely on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted in: the case. But the facts mentioned in the charge-sheet do not disclose any offence. It was further pointed out that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order cannot be sustained. But the facts mentioned in the charge-sheet do not disclose any offence. It was further pointed out that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It will be better to refer here relevant para of the impugned order, which is quoted herein below : "Accused Nabi Mian files Hazri. The other accused Shedique Mian represented. No body appears no behalf of the accused on the repeated calls of the Court. Heard the learned special P.P. Perused the charge-sheet. A prima facie case under Section 7 of the E.G. Act is made out against both the aforesaid accused persons. Cognizance of the offence is accordingly taken against both the accused person. Put up on 28,6.1984 for supply of the copies of police paper to the accused person." 5. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that cognizance of the case has been taken by the Special Judge, E.G. Act on perusal of the charge- sheet alone and no other document was perused by him at the time of taking cognizance of the case. Charge-sheet, which is Annexure-2, discloses the following facts. fnukad 30-7-1983 dks vkcwfrZ fujh{kd Jh jke izrki flag ukjk;.kiqj CykWd ls vapykf/kdkjh ukjk;.kiqj ft- nqedk ds lkFk turk ds }kjk mfpr ewY; ds fok uoh fe;ka ds fo:) vkosnu ds vk/kkj ij mlds nqdku dh tkWp dh x;h rks tkWp ds esa vfHk;qoh fe;kW xsgw ,oa pkoy dk pksjctkjh phuh dks mfpr ugha cspuk] nqdku lacaf/kr dkxtkrksa dks ekWxus ij miLFkkfir ugha djuk bR;kfn vkjksi lR; ik;k x;k A bl vk/kkj ij ukjk;.kiqj Fkkuk dkaM la- 63 fn- 2-11-1983 /kkjk 719 vko;d oLrq vf/k- ds vUrxZr dk;e gqvk A vk-o-vf/k- ,oa xokgksa ds os;ku ls ;g dk.M /kkjk 719 vk- oLrq vf/k- ds vUrxZr lR; ik;k x;k A vr% miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qoh fe;ka is- eqfLye fe;ka vkSj fln~nhd fe;kW is- vCnqy fe;ka nksuksa lk- deyiqjk Fkk- ukjk;.kiqj ft- nqedk ds fo:) /kkjk 719 oLrq vf/k- ds vUrxZr U;k;ky; esa U;k; gsrq vkjksi i= lefiZr djrk gw A 6. From perusal of the charge-sheet quoted above it is apparent that facts disclose no offence. From perusal of the charge-sheet quoted above it is apparent that facts disclose no offence. It further appears that charge- sheet discloses that inspection was made and in course of inspection it was found that rice and wheat was sold in black market and sugar was not sold at proper price and no paper as demanded was produced and, therefore, a case under Section 7/9 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered. 7. It is apparent from perusal of the charge-sheet, quoted above, that it discloses no offence but taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of such a charge-sheet is bad in law in view of the provision of the Section 11 of the Act which mention that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act except on the report in writing of the fact constituting such offence made by a person who is the public servant defined under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. For this reason, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. In view of the discussions made above, application is allowed and the order dated 11.6.1984 in connection with Special Case No. 81/1983 corresponding to G.R No. 53/1984 arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 0063/1983 against the petitioner on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 10.5.1984 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the prosecution of the petitioner in that case is also quashed.