Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 229 (PAT)

Trilok Chand Agarwal v. State Of Bihar

2008-02-04

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard M/s R.K. Singh and N. Ganguly, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The two petitioners herein, who are respectively the Proprietor and the Manager of M/s Durga Agency, the Clearing and Forwarding Agents (hereinafter referred to as "the C&F Agents") of M/s Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") have prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Special Case No. 30 of 1998 arising out of Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 514 of 1998 including the order dated 14.11.2005 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the E.C. Act"). 3. One G.P. Sharma, Executive Magistrate, Patna, submitted a written information on 29.8.1998 before the Officer In charge, Gardanibagh P.S. stating inter alia that on that day on receipt of complaint regarding adulteration of edible oil, he alongwith others raided the premises of M/s Shalimar Cold Storage, Anisabad, which was the storage premises of the -C&F Agents. It is alleged that in course of the raid in the presence Depot Manager, Bishwanath Roy, and petitioner Ajay Agarwal it was detected that the price and stock position as required under the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices & Stocks) Order, 1977, had not been displayed and on demand the relevant documents were not produced for verification. It was also alleged that the edible oil was stored on wet flooring which was not congenial. Accordingly the entire stock of edible oil was seized and removed to a better place and handed over to the owner of the cold storage under a Zimanama and samples of the edible oil was taken. It was alleged that the two petitioners and the Depot Manager had violated the provisions of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display ot Prices & Stocks) Order and Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. it was also stated that the requisite sanction for prosecution had been duly obtained. 4. it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the sample of edible oil taken for examination were found to be pure, and genuine as it would be apparent from the report submitted by the local Health Authority which are Annexures-2 and 3 to the application. 4. it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the sample of edible oil taken for examination were found to be pure, and genuine as it would be apparent from the report submitted by the local Health Authority which are Annexures-2 and 3 to the application. On the aforesaid premise the leamed counsel sought to submit that the allegation of the edible oil being adulterated does not appear to be correct. 5. It was next sought to be submitted that under Section 31(2) of the Licenses Unification Order the State Government had issued gazette notification dated 19.1.1993 exempting National Dairy Development Board and its authorized agents the Company from the provisions of purchase, sale and storage of "DHARA" edible oil and as such neither the Company nor its C&F Agent and its office bearers can be said to have violated any of the provisions of the Unification Order. 6. it was next submitted that even the aiiegation of contravention of the Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices & Stocks) Order could not be said to have been violated since the same is applicable to a dealer and not to the C&F Agents, in this connection it was sought to be submitted that the iocai office of the C&F. Agent was at Ashok Bhawan, S.K. Puri, Boring Canal Road, Patna, and if any display of price and stock was to be made the same ought to be displayed at the office and not in the cold storage where they were stored. Under the law no display and price and stock position was required to be displayed at the godown premises. 7. On the aforesaid premises the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to submit that the prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the Court when it had been made clear from the submissions advanced that the petitioners were not liable for contravention of any of the offences which have been alleged against them. 8. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel appear to carry force and the learned A.P.P. is not in a position to dispute the same as all the legal issues raised were in favour of the petitioners. 9. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case the entire criminal proceeding so far as the petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed and the application is allowed.