Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1147 (PAT)

Nageshwar Prasad Gupta v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-29

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2006
Judgment Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. Heard Shri N.K. Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Shri Jhakhandi Upadhaya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner who has been made to figure as an accused in Katihar (M) P.S. Case No. 25/2004 (G.R. No. 73/2004) is aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2004 passed by Shri P.K. Choubey, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in the aforesaid case whereby he has taken cognizance for offences under Sec. 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Accordingly, the instant application for quashing of the said order. 3. The prosecution case is founded on the written report submitted by the Supply Inspector, Katihar, who inter alia stated therein that at about 16.20 hours on 14.01.2004 he raided the business premises of the petitioner and recovered in all 620 bags of wheat and 40 empty bags out of which 220 bags of wheat, each weighing 50 kgs, were found loaded on a truck parked in front of the godown premises bearing registration No. BR  39 -7292. It was suspected that all this wheat belonged to the Food and Civil Supplies Department which were loaded at the F.C.I. Godown for its transportation to Government Godowns. The petitioner on demand could not produce the relevant documents in connection therewith whereupon the said wheat was seized under a seizure list and a case under Sec. 7 E.C. Act read with sec. 409, 420, 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is the proprietor of the firm running in the name and style of M/S Prakash Enterprises and was registered under the Bihar Finance Act. It has also been submitted that since this Court in a series of decisions held that the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 is neither workable nor on for cable, so far wheat and rice are concerned as the Central Government abolished the storage limit w.e.f. 27.1.1995, the petitioner for the last 2  years was carrying on business in wheat rice etc. without any licence. It was further submitted that form 15.2.2002 the Central Government had abolisher all restrictions of movement etc. and requirement of taking licence for carrying on business in wheat and rice. 5. without any licence. It was further submitted that form 15.2.2002 the Central Government had abolisher all restrictions of movement etc. and requirement of taking licence for carrying on business in wheat and rice. 5. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that with removing of all deterrent measures in respect of trade in wheat and rice and with rice and wheat being freely available in the market, the petitioner made purchases for his firm between 9.1. 04 and 14.1.04 from agriculturists through the Market Committee. In support of the contention my attention has been drawn to Annexure-3 series which indicated that the petitioner had purchased 400 bags of wheat each weighing 100 kgs. on 14.1.2004 through two receipts each for 200 bags. It has also been submitted that prior thereto on 9.1.2004, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Katihar Circle held an inspection of the business premises of the petitioner and it would appear from his report (Annexure-3) that he had found 131 bags of maize and 112 bags of wheat in the godown. It was further submitted that the suspicion of the informant and the court that the seized wheat actually belonged and was meant for the F.C.I./S.F.C. godowns was disproved as it was found that the stock of wheat shifted from that F.C.I. godown, Katihar, to the S.F.C. godown at Katihar and Purnea were found to be in order in course of investigation. 6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid factual aspects it was sought to be contended that no offence either u/s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act or for violation of any order made u/s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act had been made out. It was also submitted that since the wheat from the F.C.I. godown was not entrusted to the petitioner and he was not transporting wheat form the godown of F.C.I. he could not be fastened with the liability of offences under Secs. 409 or 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and his prosecution would be an abuse of the process of court. 7. The learned Counsel for the State was not in a position to refute any of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. I find sufficient force in the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner which are supported by documentary evidence. 7. The learned Counsel for the State was not in a position to refute any of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. I find sufficient force in the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner which are supported by documentary evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case the prosecution of the petitioner which are supported by documentary evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case the prosecution of the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. Such prosecution cannot be sustained in law. 9. Accordingly, the order of cognizance so far as the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed and the application is allowed.