Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1303 (JHR)

Rameshwar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-11-10

N.N.TIWARI

body2006
ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The present Cr. Revision has been directed against the order impugned dated 28.6.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat in Jaridih P.S. Case No. 116/2005 corresponding to T.R. No. 1075(A)/2006 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Section 239, Cr PC was rejected and charge was directed to be framed under Section 7 of the E.C. Act against the petitioner and three other accused. 2. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the State. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that a Truck No. B.R.-36- 5525 was intercepted by the police and Supply Inspector carrying 119 packets of rice containing 50 K.G. in each packet to the total 59.50 quintals. The truck was intercepted near the house of the petitioner Rameshwar Singh a licensee under Public Distribution System at Langtatarn. His ration shop was found closed without display of the stock position of the food-grains in the display-board. One Satyanarayan Gupta was found sitting in the truck who disclosed that the packets containing rice belonged to the petitioner and the prosecution party had therefore, reason to believe that 119 packets of rice which were seized were being taken to be sold in the black-market. The police after investigation submitted charges-sheet against as many as 4 accused persons including the petitioner at Sl. No. 1 and the cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. 4. From perusal of the cognizance order as well as the order impugned passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Bermo at Tenughat in Jaridih P.S. Case No. 116/2005 whereby the discharge petition of the petitioner was rejected, neither the police has pointed out the contravention of any provision of control order as framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act which is liable for punishment under Section 7 of the E.C. Act, nor it has been pointed out by the cognizance taking Court as to which control order has been violated by the petitioner. The allegation was that the packets of rice were being taken to be sold in the black-market and for such allegation the cognizance of such offence is required to be taken by the Special Court constituted for it. The allegation was that the packets of rice were being taken to be sold in the black-market and for such allegation the cognizance of such offence is required to be taken by the Special Court constituted for it. It is not the allegation that the packets of rice which were seized were earmarked for the distribution through the Public Distribution System rather One Thakur Singh has claimed the rice packets to be his own and that Thakur Singh had filed a petition for the release of his rice packets. Moreover, the Government by notification has lifted the control from the rice of its sale, purchase and transportation. 5. In the facts and circumstances, the cognizance taken of the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and charge proposed to be framed against the petitioner under the same Section of E.C. Act is not sustainable and, therefore, the petitioner Rameshwar Singh is discharged in Jaridih P.S. Case No. 116/2005 for the alleged offence under Section 7 E.C. Act and this petition is allowed.