Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 984 (JHR)

RAMESH KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2004-09-22

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
Judgment : ( 1 ) HEARD the parties. ( 2 ) BY filing this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the First Information Report of Daltonganj Sadar (Town)P. S. Case No. 29/2003, which are registered under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 31-3-2003 filed by the Police after completion of investigation. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly submitted that the search and seizure made by the police in the present case is illegal as the same was done by the sub-Inspector of Police though as per Clause iv of the Motor Spirit and High Speeddiesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Mal practices)Order, 1998 the power of search and seizure has only been given to a Gazetted Officer of the Central or state Government or any Police Officer not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police duly authorized by the general of special order by the central Government or the State Government as the case may be and, therefore, the F. I. R. , which has been registered on the basis of the said search and seizure made by the Sub-Inspector of Police is liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) IT has further submitted that the various procedures provided under Clause V of the aforesaid Motor Spirit and High Speed diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Mal practices) Order, 1998 was not complied with which was to be mandatorily followed and, therefore, the entire search and seizure submitted by the sub-Inspector of Police was not authorized to do so and the entire prosecution is liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) IT has further submitted that even if the entire allegations made in the F. I. R. is accepted on its face value no offence whatsoever is made out. ( 5 ) IT has further submitted that even if the entire allegations made in the F. I. R. is accepted on its face value no offence whatsoever is made out. ( 6 ) THE first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding illegal search and seizure is liable to be rejected on the ground that the F. I. R. was not registered for violation of any of the provision of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and prevention of Mal practices) Order, 1998 but as a matter of fact it was registered for commission of the offence under the Indian Penal Code and the charge-sheet has also been submitted by the Police for commission of the offence under the Indian Penal Code and not under the Motor Spirit and High Speed diesel (Regulation of Supply and distribution and Prevention of Mal practices) Order, 1998. Therefore, the requirement of Clause iv or V of the aforesaid Motor Spirit and High speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Mal practices)Order, 1998 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 7 ) SO far the second submission that no case is made out on the allegations made in the FIR is concerned, in my view, the same is also liable to be rejected, on the simple ground that admittedly, now the police has submitted charge-sheet finding that the offence alleged in the FIR under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been committed and, therefore, at this stage now the court below has to examine and apply his mind as to whether any prima facie case for commission of the offence, onthe police report is made out or not. This Court in exercise of inherent power under section 482, cr P. C. cannot and should not usurp the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who is authorized to apply his mind and pass an appropriate order on the basis of the police report submitted after investigation. ( 8 ) IN view of my discussions and findings above, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Application dismissed. --- *** --- .