Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1091 (JHR)

Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2011-12-12

R.R.PRASAD

body2011
ORDER By the Court.-1.Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. In spite of opportunity being given, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. 3. This application has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 07.07.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in Hunterganj P.S. Case No.89 of 2008 (G.R. No.661 of 2008) whereby and whereunder the cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioners under Section 7 of the E.C. Act and also under Section 1208 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The facts giving rise this application are that when the informant-Block Supply Inspector, Hunterganj, Chatra inspected the house of the petitioner, Arun Kumar Singh he found 150 Quintals of Wheat stored in his house, which was suspected to have been belonging to FCI and were meant to be distributed among the beneficiary of the scheme of Antodaya. On such allegation, case was lodged against the petitioner Arun Kumar Singh as well as other accused person including Kameshwar Singh, who has been alleged to have had kept the wheat in the house of Arun Kumar Singh. 5. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted, upon which, cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioners and other under Section 7 of the E.C. Act read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code on 07.07.2010 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, which order has been challenged to be bad. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that the case has been registered under Section 7 of the E.C. Act on the allegation that petitioner Kameshwar Singh and one other had kept 150 Quintals of Wheat in the house of petitioner Arun Kumar Singh, but storing Wheat to the extent of 150 Quintals or more does not make out any offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act in absence of any control order issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act with respect to Sale, Purchase, Storage and Transportation etc. of the Wheat. 7. It has been pleaded in the application that on the date of occurrence, no such order was in vogue. The said assertion has not been denied. 8. of the Wheat. 7. It has been pleaded in the application that on the date of occurrence, no such order was in vogue. The said assertion has not been denied. 8. When there has been no such control order, any prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code apparently appears to be bad. 9. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, order dated 07.07.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Chatra in Hunterganj P.S. Case No.89 of 2008 (C.R. No.661 of 2008) under which cognizance of the offence has been taken against petitioners-Arun Kumar Singh and Kameshwar Singh under Section 7 of the E.C. Act as also under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed. 10. In the result, this Cr. Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Petition allowed.