Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1100 (PAT)

Bishwanath Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2010-05-04

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the entire prosecution in Case No.72 C2/87, pending in the court the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai for the offence under Sec.16 (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. An inspection was made in the premises of the petitioner and it was found that without any licence/ authorization, the petitioner was indulged in the business of biscuits, Lemon-chuice , Chocolates , Namkin and other food articles. Accordingly, after obtaining sanction from the Chairman of the Municipality, the Executive Officer of Lakhisarai Municipality submitted prosecution report for the offence under Sec.16 (a) of the Food Adulteration Act against the petitioner. By order dated 22.8.1987, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sec.16 (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and directed for issuance of summons for securing attendance of the petitioner. Right from the month of August, 1987, several orders were passed to secure attendance of the petitioner but all efforts went in vein. In the case, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued. Thereafter, process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for attachment of the property of the petitioner was also issued. However, it could never be executed and finally after expiry of about 11 years from the date of cognizance, the learned Magistrate was constrained to declare the petitioner as permanent absconder. 3. About more than 1 years from the date of being declared permanent absconder, the petitioner approached this Court, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by filing the present petition. By the order dated 13.3.2000, while admitting the present case for hearing, this Court directed that meanwhile further proceedings in the court below shall remain stayed and since then the order of stay is continuing. 4. Sri D. N. Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the entire prosecution, has argued that in this case without sanction order being issued by the competent authority, the prosecution report was filed and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance , which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Sec.20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Sec.20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He submits that the local authority was not authorized to accord sanction for prosecution for offence other than offences under Sections 14 and 14 (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On this ground alone, he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance. 5. Sri Brij Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, this petition is liable to be rejected without going into the merit of the case. He further submits that in this case on the prosecution report, cognizance order was passed in the year 1987 and thereafter despite best efforts by the court, attendance of petitioner could not be secured. Even after issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners attendance was not secured. Fade up with the attitude, however, finally by order dated 17.4.1998, the learned Magistrate declared the petitioner as permanent absconder and thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court after more than one and half year from the date of his declaration as absconder. He further submits that the point as to whether on the relevant dated the Chairman of the Municipal Corporation was competent to accord sanction or not, can be looked by the court below itself. This matter may not be looked into by this Court that too while exercising power under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of the present petition. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the entire ordersheet of the court below. Surprisingly, while making a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution, the petitioner except ordersheet has not brought on record even single chit of papers. The prosecution report has also not been brought on record by the petitioner and only by way of making pleading in his petition, he has made a prayer for quashing of entire prosecution. In absence of prosecution report and other required documents, it is difficult for this Court to examine anything in the present case and, as such, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the order of cognizance, which has been brought on record by the petitioner. In absence of prosecution report and other required documents, it is difficult for this Court to examine anything in the present case and, as such, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the order of cognizance, which has been brought on record by the petitioner. Accordingly this petition is rejected. 7. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Since the petitioner was declared permanent absconder and the matter is very old, it is desirable to direct the petitioner to appear before the court below without any delay. 8. With the above observation and direction, the application stands rejected.