Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 192 (PAT)

Arun Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-29

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard 2. This application is by the petitioners who are employees of North Central Railway and were at the material time posted at Kanpur Central Railway Station as Head Parcel Clerk and Parcel Clerk (loading) at the Parcel Office at the railway station. They are being prosecuted in a case based on an FIR being Muzaffarpur G.R.P.S. Case no. 61 of 2004 instituted under Sections 467, 468, 477 and 420 IPC read with Sec.16(iA) (A-1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 4. It appears that the State Government issued a notification purporting to be under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act imposing a ban on sale, purchase or storage for sale in the State of Bihar of a product commonly known as Gutka which is an admixture of Panmasala and Zarda. In the said FIR. It is alleged that a consignment was booked by these petitioners at Kanpur showing to be Zarda, which was discovered at the time of delivery at Sarai railway station to be in fact Gutka. It is therefore alleged that in order to violate the State Governments notification the petitioners in conspiracy with others had booked the consignment of Gutka showing it to be Zarda a non prohibited item. On basis of the aforesaid allegation the petitioners and others have been made accused. 5. It may be sumitted here that consequent upon recovery of the aforesaid consignment at Sarai railway station samples were sent for test and on basis of the report being submitted to the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer. Muzaffarpur on his letter the present prosecution has been instituted at Muzaffarpur G.R.P.S. 6. The counsel for the petitioners submits that firstly the deception if any was at Kanpur Centra! Railway Station and not at Sarai or Muzaffarpur and as such the police had no jurisdiction to institute a case at Muzaffarpur merely on basis of discovery of deception in terms of Sec.179 Cr.P.C. Next it is submitted that the petitioners booked the consignment on basis of invoice as submitted by the consignor. They were under no obligation to verify the contents of the consignment and as such could not be prosecuted. They were under no obligation to verify the contents of the consignment and as such could not be prosecuted. Thirdly in course of argument it has been submitted that the State Government notification prohibiting the sale purchase and storage for sale of Gutka having been declared illegal and enforceable by this Court following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Godawat Panmasala Products vs. Union of India since reported in 2004(4)PLJR 62(SC). In law there being no ban no offence can be said to have been committed. 7. Without considering the submission with regard to the first two grounds suffice to say that once the notification prohibiting the trade in Gutka in State of Bihar was declared illegal and quashed by this Court then the petitioners are right in submitting that there could be no offence. So far as the consignment in question is concerned there being no legal ban in sending Gutka to the State of Bihar there was no violation muchless under the provision of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The State then submitted that deception was carried out in wrong booking which could be an offence itself. Even if this allegation is to be accepted it is clear and it cannot be disputed that deception, if any was at Kanpur Central Railway Station. It was only discovered at Sarai platform which does not give jurisdiction for police in Bihar to investigate the said offence in terms of Sec.179 Cr.P.C. It has been held in the case of State vs. Chuni Lal Begani, since reported in AIR 1965 Patna 103 by this Court under similar circumstances where goods were bookd as Tea from Guwahati to Kanpur and at Jamalpur junction it was found that the consignment actually contained countdown a case was instituted at Jamalpur by the G.R.P which was quashed by this Court on the similar reasonings. Therefore. I am left with no option but to quash the prosecution so far as it relates to the petitioners in the present case. The police will not proceed further in the matter so far as petitioners are concerned. This writ application is accordingly allowed.