Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 84 (PAT)

Most. Girdhari Kuar v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-11

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Agrawal, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned A.P.R Incharge for the State. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 23.9.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah in Lauria RS. Case No. 97 of 2003 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (here-inafter referred to as the E.C. Act). 3. It appears that the Crime Investigation (Food) Department, Bihar led by CID of Food conducted inquiries in the shops of the petitioners with regard to irregularities concerning the allotment and distribution of foodgrains for red card holders attached to the shops of the petitioners and in this regard the petitioner Most. Girdhari Kuar is said to have misappropriated 66.38 quintals wheat and 32.63 quintals of rice worth Rs. 18,914/- and Rs. 13,052/- respectively, the petitioner Ghuran Ram is said to have misappropriated 27.2 quintals of wheat and 13.81 quintals of rice worth Rs. 8,106/- and Rs. 5,524/- respectively, the petitioner Ramanand is said to have misappropriated 61.19 quintals of wheat and 37.86 quintals of rice worth Rs. 18,357/- and Rs. 15,104/- respectively and the petitioner Md. Ziyaullah is said to have misappropriated 220.63 quintals of wheat and 6.1.78 quintals of rice worth Rs. 66,669/- and 24,712/- respectively. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners are dealers under the Public Distribution System and running fair price shops being representative/agent of the State Government and in view of Clause 31(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 they had been given due protection inasmuch as Unification Order shall not applicable to them with regard to sale or storage of the articles. 5. Admittedly, it is well settled by now that the dealers under the Public Distribution System act as agent/representative of the State Government and in view of Clause 31(2) of the Unification Order the provisions of the Unification Order is not applicable to the dealers of Public Distribution System as they are the agent of the State Government. 6. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the order taking cognizance, so far as these petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed.