Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 684 (PAT)

Shankar Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-13

NAVIN SINHA

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. This application challenges the prosecution of the petitioner in case No. 211 of 2002 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 14 of 2002 dated 21.2.2002 instituted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the order of cognizance thereupon dated 14.11.2002. 3. On 21.2.2002 Chainpur P.S. Case No. 14 of 2002 was lodged against the petitioner. The substance of the allegation was that upon raid of his business premises 208 quintals of rice and 112.50 quintals of paddy were found. The petitioner could not produce any wholesale dealer licence, stock register, Cashmemo etc. on demand. The allegation was that for reason of not possessing the wholesale dealer license, the petitioner had violated the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution was bad-in-law, the same was based on non est ground, it was submitted that the storage limit for rice was last fixed by notification bearing No. GSR 13, dated 23.8.1990. The Central Government by its direction dated 27.10.1995 abolished stock limit of rice. This was communicated by letter dated 10.12.1999. The contention was that in view of the storage limit of rice being abolished on 27.1.1995 no offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act could be said to have been committed in respect of the said commodity. The learned counsel then referred to a judgment reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 730 , Smt. Kiran Bala Jain V/s. The State of Bihar, and contends that by letter dated 30.9.1994 the Central Government excluded the storage of wheat and wheat products from the purview of licence under the Essential Commodities Act. The contention therefore, was that due to abolition of stock limit of rice and wheat by the Central Government, the petitioner could not have been said to have violated the provision of clause 3 of the said order so far as rice and wheat are concerned. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any offence under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. The prosecution of the petitioner under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 was, therefore, not sustainable. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any offence under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. The prosecution of the petitioner under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 was, therefore, not sustainable. The learned counsel also submitted that the constitution of Special Courts by the High Court was contrary to Section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act and therefore the order of cognizance was bad on this ground also. 5. The learned counsel for the State opposed the application and submitted that this grievance could be raised during the trial. 6. Having considered the rival submissions this Court arrives at the conclusion that in view of the ceiling limit of rice and wheat having been abolished as referred to hereinbefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have been committed any violation of the aforesaid Unification Order. The prosecution of the petitioner was, therefore, clearly contrary to law and was not sustainable. The prosecution of the petitioner in Chainpur P.S. Case No. 14 of 2002 giving rise to Case No. 211 of 2002 pending before S.D.J.M. Kaimur is, therefore quashed. 7. In view of the aforesaid, there is no need for this Court, in the present case to record any finding on the second submission urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the constitution of the Special Courts not being in accordance with law the order of cognizance was vitiated. 8. This application, therefore, succeeds and the same is allowed.