Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 815 (JHR)

Rajendra Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2010-08-17

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. 2. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 3.4.2006 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, for the offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licensing and Unification) Order, 1984 against the petitioner in connection with Kasmar P.S. Case No. 64 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 954 of 2004. 3. The case at the police station has been registered on the basis of a written statements of the Informant-Supply Inspector on 6.12.2004, alleging therein that on the instructions of the P.D.S. dealer, namely, Rajendra Prasad Singh (Petitioner), the co-accused Talu Kapardar loaded 14 packets of rice from the shop of the petitioner and the same was to be delivered at the shop of one Saryu Nayak. In course of transit, the Bullockcart carrying rice, was intercepted by the villagers. On the allegation that the seized packets of rice were illegally sold by the petitioner, a case for the offences mentioned above, was registered. 4. Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner assail the impugned order of cognizance, on the ground that the learned Magistrate had passed the order of cognizance mechanically without application of judicial mind and without considering the fact that though the case was registered for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, but the prosecution has not informed as to which control order, has the petitioner violated for inviting the penal consequences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act? Learned counsel argues further that the cognizance for the alleged offence under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licensing and Unification) Order, is also misconceived as because there is no such allegation that the petitioner has been violating any conditions of license granted to him under the said Order/Act. Learned counsel adds further that considering the above aspects of the prosecution case and the lacuna in the impugned order of cognizance, this Court while considering a similar application for quashing the order of cognizance filed by the co-accused Saryu Nayak, had quashed the order of cognizance. The same ratio applies in the case of the petitioner also. 5. Learned counsel adds further that considering the above aspects of the prosecution case and the lacuna in the impugned order of cognizance, this Court while considering a similar application for quashing the order of cognizance filed by the co-accused Saryu Nayak, had quashed the order of cognizance. The same ratio applies in the case of the petitioner also. 5. Counsel for the State submits that though the case was registered for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, but as it appears it is not informed by the prosecution as to which control order, has the petitioner violated for inviting the penal consequences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it appears that the learned court below while passing the order of cognizance, has not applied its judicial mind and has passed the order in a mechanical manner. This application is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of cognizance dated 3.4.2006 and the entire criminal prosecution pending against the petitioner, vide Kasmar P.S. Case No. 64 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 954 of 2004, is hereby quashed.