Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 80 (PAT)

Md. Waizuddin v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-11

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Sri Uday Shankar Sharan Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Through this application the petitioner seeks to question the propriety of the order dated 7.8.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nalanda at Biharsharif in Manpur Police Station Case No. 25 of 2006 whereby he has taken cognizance for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. It appears that the Anchal Adhikari-cum-Block Supply Officer, Biharsharif lodged a written complaint before the Officer Incharge of Manpur Police Station on 21.4.2006 inter alia stating therein that on 9.5.2006 the Public Distribution Shop of Md. Waizuddin, the petitioner herein, was sought to be inspected by the Block Development Officer, Biharsharif but as the shop at the relevant time was found closed no physical verification of the stock could be done. However, one consumer Kapildeo Prasad gave statement that the Dealer had not supplied kerosene oil for the months of February and March to the consumers. Some other consumers also gave similar statements making complaints in distribution of kerosene oil and irregularity in supply of foodgrains. A show cause was issued to the dealer by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Biharsharif regarding the irregularities mentioned above and as the show cause submitted by the dealer was not found satisfactory another inspection of the shop premises was sought to be made at about 12.30 P.M. on 18.3.2006 and again the shop in question was found closed. It is said that some of the consumers appeared before the Inspecting Officer and made complaints against the dealer regarding non-distribution of kerosene oil and irregular supply of food-grains. On the basis of the said written report the aforesaid P.S. Case was drawn up under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and by the impugned order cognizance was taken. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner regarding the closure of the shop on the dates of inspection that so far as 9.3.2006 is concerned, he had gone to Sohsarai which is at the distance of 20 kilometer to lift kerosene oil from the wholesale distributor and so far as 18.3.2006 is concerned, it is said that the shop had been closed as the dealer had gone to get bank draft prepared for lifting of foodgrains. Irregularity in supply of foodgrains and kerosene oil have also been denied. 5. Irregularity in supply of foodgrains and kerosene oil have also been denied. 5. It has finally been submitted that the petitioner having been appointed as a dealer under the Public Distribution System as an agent of the State, the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order) was not applicable to the petitioner. In this connection, my attention was drawn to Clause 31(2) (c) of the Unification Order which provides that "nothing in this order shall apply to the purchase, sale or storage for sale of Trade Articles by or on behalf of the Officer, Department, Institution or other organisations of the State Government or such agency as may be approved by the State Government". The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner having been appointed as a dealer under the Public Distribution System came within the ambit of protection under Clause 31(2)(c) of the Unification Order. 6. A perusal of Clause 31(2)(c) of the Unification Order goes to show that the organisations of the State Government and the agency approved by the State Government have specifically been excluded from the rigours of the Unification Order in respect of any violation relating to sale, storage for sale of trade articles by such agency. The petitioner being the agent of the State Government appointed under an agreement is absolved of any offence arising out of the violation of the Unification Order with respect to sale or storage of the trade articles. Accordingly, the Unification Order was not applicable to the petitioner, a dealer of public distribution shop, and he cannot be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provisions of the Unification Order. 7. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the cognizance taken in Manpur P.S. Case No. 25 of 2006 is hereby quashed.