Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1122 (PAT)

Ratan Kumar Choudhary v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-27

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate and Mr. K.C.K. Sinha, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner through this instant application seeks the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 6.4.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 7 E.C. Act in Patori PS. Case No. 46 of 1999 (G.R. No. 7/99, Tr. No. 2106/04) (presently pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Samastipur). 3. The petitioner is proprietor of the firms M/s Prem Chand Prasad, M/s Shiv Kumar Lal and he holds licence bearing No. 30/84 renewed upto date granted by the licensing authority for carrying business in wholesale foodgrains at Patori Bazar in the District of Samastipur. 4. It appears that at about 4.30 P.M. on 30.5.1999 the business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the authorities of the Supply Department in absence of the petitioner but his son was present who assisted the authority in the inspection. However, he could not produce any paper for the stock of rice and wheat available in the business premises of the petitioner. It is also said that although there was display board in the business premises of the petitioner as required under the provisions of Display Order, 1997, the authorities told the son of the petitioner that there should also be a display board at the godown premises and accordingly the instant case was lodged. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is well settled principle of law that failure to produce books of account by a person other than licencee or other relevant papers make out no offence in the eye of law. It is also well settled principle of law that a display board is required to be displayed at the business premises and not at the godown and for both these reference was made to 1998(1) PLJR 103. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that as a whole sale dealer the petitioner can keep or store foodgrains upto 2500 quintals whereas in the present case the total quantity which was found in the business premises/godown premises of the petitioner was found to be much below 2500 quintals. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that as a whole sale dealer the petitioner can keep or store foodgrains upto 2500 quintals whereas in the present case the total quantity which was found in the business premises/godown premises of the petitioner was found to be much below 2500 quintals. 7. In terms of the notification of the State Government dated 11th October, 2002 foodgrains have been taken out of the purview of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Price and Stocks) Order, 1977 with effect from that date no prosecution, seizure or confiscation under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act can be made against any individual in regard to the foodgrains. 8. This being the position, seizure of the foodgrains of the petitioner as also initiation of the complaint case is wholly without jurisdiction and is accordingly quashed. 9. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in Patori RS. Case No. 46 of 1999 (G.R. No. 7/99, Tr. No. 2106/04) including the order dated 6.4.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur taking cognizance is hereby quashed.