Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1589 (JHR)

Bishnu Deo Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-12-15

D.K.SINHA

body2009
JUDGMENT : Petitioners have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of their entire criminal proceeding including the order impugned dated 6.11.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj by which cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as also under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act against them in Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.178 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.401 of 2005. Prosecution was launched on the basis of the written report presented by the informant Block Supply Officer, Sahibganj before the officer-in-charge of Sahibganj Police Station stating, inter alia, that he had received information on 18.11.2005 that the local L.P.G. distributor, namely, Shri Bishnu Deo Singh had been selling L.P.G. refills in black market with the help of his employees. A team was organized for conducting raid comprising Executive Magistrate, District Supply Officer and many other officers including the police force and the team conducted raid in the house of one Beni Prasad Tanti. It was alleged that Beni Prasad Tanti though escaped, but in course of search, three filled L.P.G. cylinders of Indane Gas were recovered to which no explanation could be given. However, wife of the said Beni Prasad Tanti narrated that these cylinders were kept in her house by her neighbour Sambhu Prasad Gupta , who was an employee of the local gas distributor, namely, Shri Bishnu Deo Singh. From that place, the raiding party went to the residential office of the local distributor-petitioner No.1 Shri Bishnu Deo Singh but it was alleged that he escaped after locking his office and the members of his family did not co-operate in such inquiry by producing the coupons of the gas cylinders. His office was sealed in presence of the senior officers and finally, it was alleged that the petitioner No.1 Shri Bishnu Deo Singh with the help of his employees, had kept three filled gas cylinders in the house of the petitioner no.3 Beni Prasad Tanti so that the cylinders could be sold in the black market. It was requested to take action against all the three petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as also under relevant Sections of the Explosive Substance Act. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. It was requested to take action against all the three petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as also under relevant Sections of the Explosive Substance Act. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, at the outset, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, criminal prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offence either under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act or under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act is not maintainable and therefore, entire prosecution is liable to be quashed. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under such sections without specifying as to which provision of the control order or unification order has been violated by the petitioners as framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act so as to call for their punishment under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 had obtained licence for distribution of L.P.G. cylinders of Indane company and also obtained licence from the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosive, Explosive Department, Government of India, which was renewed upto 31.3.2006 as would be evident from Annexeure-2 of this petition. Such licence used to be issued to the licensee, distributing L.P.G. cylinders under the Explosive Act but not under the Explosive Substance Act and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners under Explosive Substance Act would amount to miscarriage of justice when there is no allegation at all that they had contravened any provision of Explosive Substance Act much less causing explosion by using explosive substance. Entire allegations are misconstrued and the evidence could not refer that the petitioners had ever hands in selling the Indane L.P.G. cylinders in black market. I find substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the prosecution failed to show and specify the provisions of control order or the unification order allegedly contravened by the petitioners so as to call for their punishment under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is settled law that the accused would be highly prejudiced if the penal provision of law for the offence alleged to have been committed by him could not be disclosed at the time of taking cognizance. It is settled law that the accused would be highly prejudiced if the penal provision of law for the offence alleged to have been committed by him could not be disclosed at the time of taking cognizance. I find from the record that neither the informant nor the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has disclosed and specified such provision of law as framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, allegedly contravened by the petitioners so as to call for punishment under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Similarly, from the facts and circumstances, I find that the petitioners have not violated any provision of the Explosive Substance Act much less offence alleged under Sections 3/4 of the said Act and therefore, the cognizance of the offence taken in those sections referred to hereinbefore is not relevant against any of the petitioners. Consequently, I observe that their criminal prosecution would be a clear manifestation of miscarriage of justice. I find merit in this petition. Accordingly, cognizance order impugned dated 6.11.2006, recorded in Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.178 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.401 of 2005 against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as also under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act is quashed and this petition is allowed.