Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 895 (PAT)

Rajendra Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2006-09-25

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.7.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Cr.Rev. No. 71 of 2006 as well as the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah under Section 7 of the E.C. Act in Nawadah (Sadar) PS. Case No. 40 of 2005. 2. The brief facts of the case is that an FIR was registered on 75.2005 by the Supply Inspector, Nawadah, Praveen Kr. Sinha wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was appointed as a Distributor under the Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojana (for short SGRY) and that on the instructions of the S.D.O, Nawadah Sadar a raid was carried out on 5.5.2005 at Jai Mata Di Dharam Kanta on Nawadah-Ranchi Road (NH-31) and in the basement of the said Jai Mata Di Dharam Kanta a godown was located wherein it was alleged that 469.78 quintals of rice was found instead of 964.68 quintals. The petitioner being a licensee of Public Distribution System (for short P.D.S.) was granted licence to trade from Akauna Bazar, Nawadah. He was obliged to store all his 964.68 quintals of rice, allotted to him under SGRY at Akauna Bazar, Nawadah and as such he violated Clauses 2(a) & (b), 4, 8 and 9 of the Licence granted to him under Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (for short Control Order). The other allegation in the F.I.R. against the petitioner was that there was shortfall of 494.90 quintals of rice as the petitioner ought to have had 964.68 quintals of rice in his stock under the SGRY and as such the petitioner had black marketed 494.90 quintals. 3. It has been submitted that the police after carrying out investigation in the case submitted final form on 7.10.2005. The C.J.M. has stated in his order dated 31.5.2006 that the investigating officer has not referred to the conditions of the licence and he has further stated that the investigating officer has not collected any evidence with regard to authorization of the petitioner to store the food grains at any place other than Akauna Bazar. The petitioner challenged the order dated 31.5.2006 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Cr. Rev. No. 71/2006 but the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision application by his order dated 26.7.2006. The petitioner challenged the order dated 31.5.2006 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Cr. Rev. No. 71/2006 but the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision application by his order dated 26.7.2006. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was off and on appointed for distribution of food grains (rice) under SGRY by the Block Development Officer. He was chosen as a point of distribution of food grain under SGRY only for the reason that he was existing RD.S. dealer and had carried out his work under the P.D.S. without blemish. During the course of investigation the police had found that between the godowns at Jai Mata Di Dharam Kanta and Harish Chandra Talab the petitioner had the whole of the 964.68 quintals that he was supposed to have under the SGRY. With regard to the godown at Jai Mata Di Dharam Kanta the petitioner had intimated the Block Development Officer that he intends to store the food grains issued to him under SGRY at Jai Mata Di Dharam Kanta and this fact was subsequently affirmed by the B.D.O. in his certificate dated 5.5.2005 wherein he had accepted that the petitioner had a godown at Jai Mata Di Dharam Kanta which was located on Nawadah Ranchi (N.H. 31). It has been further submitted that during the course of investigation the police enquired from different quarters and found that there was no shortfall in the stocks of the petitioner and the storage at Jai Mata Di Dharam Kanta was out of exigency as the stocks at the godown at Harish Chandra Talab was over flowing and as such a part of the requisite balance i.e. 469.78 quintals out of 964.68 quintals had to be shifted to Jai Mata Di Dharam Kanta. 4. Perused the orders impugned. It appears that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in violation of Unification Order which is not binding on the petitioner. As such, the orders impugned of both the courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law and they are accordingly quashed. In the result this application is allowed.