Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 870 (PAT)

Nandu Sah Son Of Mahabir Sao v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-21

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar and j. JJ. 1. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in Special Case No.22 of 1992 pending in the court of Special Judge, E. C. Act (Urban), Patna for the offence under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Short fact of the case is that on 19.10.1992, a team of Crime Investigation department (Food) conducted a raid in a premises situated in Mohalla Kadamkuan and in the said raid, it was found that petitioner nos.2 and 3 were doing business in relation to food grains. On demand being made by the officer of the C. I. D. (Food) neither any account nor license was produced by the two accused persons. However, it was intimated by accused persons that they were carrying on business on behalf of petitioner no.1. During the search, huge quantity of food grains was found. On weighment, the food grains were found as 508 quintals amounting to rs.2, 50,000/-. On the personal search of the accused Raj Kishore Prasad, petitioner no.3 an amount of Rs.9,680/- was also recovered along with a sale patti written in red ink dated 19.10.1992. In the said alleged business premises, no display board was found and as such an F. I. R. vide Kadamkuan P. S. Case No.772 of 1992 was registered under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Subsquently, the learned Special Judge on the basis of materials available on record was satisfied that prima facie case against accused persons was made out for contravention of Clause (3), (4), (10), (15)and (17) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to unification Order) and, accordingly, offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was made out and thereafter, court has passed an order for issuance of summons to the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has firstly tried to impress upon the court that petitioner no.1 was a licensee for doing business of food grains. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Annexure-2, which is photo copy of license, which was claimed to be granted to the petitioner no.1. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has firstly tried to impress upon the court that petitioner no.1 was a licensee for doing business of food grains. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Annexure-2, which is photo copy of license, which was claimed to be granted to the petitioner no.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that license itself indicates that the premise, where the raid was conducted, was a godown of petitioner no.1. He further submits that in the godown, there was no provision to fix a display board and in absence of any display board in the godown premises, one cannot be held responsible for contravention of provision under the Unification Order. He further submits that the F. I. R. was incorrectly lodged by the informant. He submits that no business was being done by the petitioner nos.2 and 3, while the raid was conducted. He submits that the food grains were stored in the godown. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that in any event, the petitioner nos.2 and 3, who are merely employees/servants of petitioner no.1, cannot be held responsible for the offence committed by the petitioner no.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to two judgments reported in A. I. R.1955 (NUC) 3521 (Allahabad) The State Vs. Bharat Lal and others) and a. I. R.1955 (NUC) 5970 Pata (Ganesh Vs. State ). He submits that long back, it has been held that for contravention of any provision by the licensee his servant or employee cannot be held responsible. On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case. 5. Shri Surendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that on raid being conducted by the c. I. D. (Food), huge quantity of food grains was found in the premises in question and petitioners nos.2 and 3 were caught red handed, while they were doing illegal business of the food grains in contravention of the provision of the Unification Order. He further submits that in the case, after registering f. I. R. , police thoroughly investigated the case and thereafter, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. He further submits that in the case, after registering f. I. R. , police thoroughly investigated the case and thereafter, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Subsequent to filing of the charge sheet, learned Special Judge after examining the materials available on record was fully satisfied regarding commission of prima facie offence as stated above. He further submits that at the initial stage of criminal case, this Court may not exercise its extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, he has prayed for rejection of present case outrightly. 6. Besides hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners and State, I have also examined the materials available on record as well as impugned order. On perusal of the F. I. R. itself, I am satisfied that petitioners had committed offence under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act. So far as the plea of the petitioners that petitioner nos.2 and 3 were simply employees/servants of petitioner no.1 is concerned, I am of the opinion that in view of specific assertion made in the f. I. R. , there is no scope for escape of petitioner nos.2 and 3 from the present case. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, I am satisfied that there is no merit in the present petition nor there is any material on record warranting this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in favour of petitioners. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 8. The present case was admitted on 25.8.1999 and while admitting the case, this Court had directed that during the pendency of the application, further proceeding in the court below in Special Case No.22 of 1992 pending in the court of Special Judge, E. C. Act (Urban), Patna shall remain stayed. In view of rejection of present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith.