Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 775 (JHR)

Baleshwar Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2008-07-22

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
Order Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this application challenging the order taking cognizance dated 29.11.2004, whereby the S.D.J.M., Garhwa, took cognizance of the offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner. 3. The facts in short are that the petitioner was holding a fair price shop being license No. 2 of 1984 and the shop was raided in which wheat and rice was found excess in his stock. According to stock register, 34 Quintals 41Kgs. 680 Grams wheat should have been there but on physical verification, the quantity of wheat was found to be 76 Quintals & 50Kgs. Similarly, as per the stock register, 27 Quintals 27Kgs. of rice should have been there,1 but on physical verification, the quantity of rice was found to be 49 Quintals. Consequently, an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and, thereafter, on completion of the investigation. Charge sheet was submitted and on the basis of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner. 4. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order taking cognizance dated 29.11 .2004 is bad in law in view of the fact that neither the F.I.R. nor in the charge-sheet nor in the order taking cognizance it is disclosed as to which particular Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been violated/contravened and, therefore, the whole criminal persecution against the petitioner including the order taking cognizance is liable to be quashed on the ground of vagueness. 5. In support of such submission he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Prakash Babu Raghubanshi vs. State of M.P., reported in (2004)7 SCC 490 " as well as the order passed by this Court in the case "Allauddin Siddique and Am. VS. The State of Jharkhand" in Cr. M.P. No. 1049 of 2004 and the order dated 31.3.2006 of this Court passed in the case of "Krishna Lal Agrawal and Am. vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr." in Cr. M.P. NO.1 of 2006. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is running a Fair Price Shop under Public Distribution System and such Fair Price Shops are governed under Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, which is a Central Act. vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr." in Cr. M.P. NO.1 of 2006. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is running a Fair Price Shop under Public Distribution System and such Fair Price Shops are governed under Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, which is a Central Act. Under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, the fair price shops are the shops which are granted license to distribute essential commodities by an order issued under Section 3 of the Act to the ration-card holders under Public Distribution System. 7. A person holding a fair price shop IS therefore, definitely comes under the purview of Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, who knows very well that he has to run the Fair Price Shop under the provisions of Public Distribution System (Control) Order and any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Control Order would entail him for an action under the said Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. 8. The Judgments cited by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner mentioned above. are the cases in which the licensees were the general traders and not the Fair Price Shop dealers. Under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, action can be taken against a dealer or licensee for violation of any of the control orders issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The case of a general food-grain dealer doing business covered under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 cannot be equated with the case in which a person is running a Fair Price Shop under Public Distribution System (Control) Order and, therefore, the requirement to mention the name of the Control Order either in the F.I.R. or in the charge-sheet or in the order taking cognizance issued under Section 3 of the Essential Com. modities Act, is not required because a licensee fully knows that he is doing business under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order and he can be proceeded for violation of the provisions of Public Distribution System (Control) Order and therefore, there is no vagueness at all. 9. In a recent case the Supreme Court in the case of "Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. reported in (2008)1 SCC 474 " has held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. 9. In a recent case the Supreme Court in the case of "Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. reported in (2008)1 SCC 474 " has held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should be exercised only in rare case that too in order to correct the patent illegality or when some miscarriage of justice has been done. The present case does not come under any of the category mentioned in the said judgment of the Supreme Court. 10. In this view of the matter, in my view, no case at all is made out for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, having found no merit this application is dismissed.