Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 650 (PAT)

Devendra Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-06

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar and j. JJ. 1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.5.1998 passed by Special Judge, Nalanda in Chandi P. S. Case No.254 of 1997. By the said order the learned Judge has taken cognizance of the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter as E. C. Act ). 2. Mr. N. K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is an agriculturist and he was in possession of seized wheat and rice. He was neither a dealer nor he has got any connection in relation to distribution of food grains to the red card holders. Learned counsel while referring to annexure-2 to the petition submits that a report was submitted by the District Agriculture Officer, Nalanda to the court of Special Judge, E. C. Act and after perusing the said report the learned Special Judge had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further submits that in relation to the alleged seizure, a confiscation proceeding was also initiated and the goods were confiscated. Against the order of confiscation the petitioner had approached this court while invoking its writ jurisdiction and this court set aside the order passed by the Collector confiscating food grains of the petitioner. He submits that since confiscation proceeding ended in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner may not be allowed to face trial in the present criminal proceeding. 3. I have also heard Mr. Pramod Kumar pandey, A. P. P. , appearing on behalf of the State. He opposes the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that from the first information report it is evident that offence under the E. C. Act was committed by the petitioner. He submits that order of cognizance is in accordance with law and this petition may be rejected. 4. I have also examined the materials available on the record. So far as annexure-2 on which the petitioner has relied upon, I am of the view that annexurd-2 may not be looked into at this stage. So far as grant of anticipatory bail by the Special Judge is concerned that has got no relevance while deciding the present petition. 4. I have also examined the materials available on the record. So far as annexure-2 on which the petitioner has relied upon, I am of the view that annexurd-2 may not be looked into at this stage. So far as grant of anticipatory bail by the Special Judge is concerned that has got no relevance while deciding the present petition. On the basis of materials available on record and after examining the impugned order of cognizance, I do not find any error in the order of cognizance. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 5. By order dated 9.8.1999 while admitting this petition for hearing this court had directed that during the pendency of this case, further proceeding as regards the petitioner in Chandi P. S. Case No.254 of 1997 pending in the court of Special Judge, Nalanda, shall remain stayed. 6. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 7. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith.