Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 155 (JHR)

Bholi Kumar Bhojgariya v. State of Jharkhand

2011-03-07

D.K.SINHA

body2011
Order By Court.-The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of his entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 7.8.2007 by which the cognizance of the offence under• Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was taken by the C.J.M., Hazaribagh in connection with Barhi P.S.Case No. 63 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 865 of 2007. 2. The prosecution story was launched on the written report presented by the informant Block Supply Officer, Barhi wherein it was narrated that he had raided the house of one Jitendra Prasad Bhagat and seized truck bearing registration No.JH02A-7503 loaded with 80 bags of wheat having 50 kg. in each packet. When his godown was searched, it was alleged that 195 bags of wheat were recovered besides 8 bags of rice. The informant had reason to suspect that all the food articles including wheat and rice belonged to the Food Corporation of India, which was stored to be sold in black market. All those bags of' wheat and rice with weight and scale were seized in presence of the witnesses and copy of the seizure list was given to the petitioner Bholi Kumar Bhojgariya & Pradeep Singh. On the basis of the written report of the informant case was instituted under Section 7 of the E.C. Act against three named accused persons including the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that only suspicion was raised by the informant that the wheat and rice alleged to be seized from the god own of Jitendra Prasad Singh found loaded on the Tata 407 truck belonged to Food Corporation of India without any evidence whatsoever. No specific allegation of violation of any control order or unification order enacted/notified under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act was alleged against the petitioner so as to attract an offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. The petitioner was the only claimant of wheat and rice seized by the prosecution party. He was neither a dealer under Public Distribution System nor he was in any manner concerned with that system. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was doing business of food-grains for the last several years having his godown in the premises of Jitendra Prasad Bhagat at Kariyatpur Barhi where he used to keep his stock. He was neither a dealer under Public Distribution System nor he was in any manner concerned with that system. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was doing business of food-grains for the last several years having his godown in the premises of Jitendra Prasad Bhagat at Kariyatpur Barhi where he used to keep his stock. He had procured 280 bags of wheat containing 50 kg. each on 12.3.2007 from M/s Shivam Enterprises of Sathopur, Biharsarif, Nalanda and 20 packets of rice containing 50 kg. each packet being total 10 Quintals against the valid receipts (Annexure-2). The above articles were transported through truck No. BR-2A-9589 for which valid road permit was issued for transportation (Annexure-3). The food articles were brought to the godown of the petitioner which was in the premises of Jitendra Prasad Bhagat situated at Kariyatpur. There was no specific allegation against the petitioner or other accused except suspicion and blatant allegation. The informant had neither claimed that the food articles belonged to the Government organization and without alleging any violation of any order criminal prosecution of the petitioner would amount to miscarriage of justice. No opportunity was given to the petitioner for the production of the relevant document. 4. The learned Counsel pointed out that the 5.0.0. Barhi by his letter No.105 requested the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh for initiation of confiscation proceeding under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act for the confiscation of seized food-grains without notice to the petitioner and during confiscation proceeding the entire seized food articles containing 275 bags of wheat weighing about 137.5 quintals and 8 bags of rice weighing about 4 quintals were directed to be distributed in Confiscation Case No. 23 of 2007 but without giving any opportunity or calling for any cause to be shown by the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh by his order dated 26.3.2007 asked the S.D.O., Barhi to distribute the entire food-grains amongst the beneficiaries old persons pension scheme of the Government. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2567 of 2007* and this Court by the order dated 4.7.2007 quashed the entire confiscation proceeding pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (Annexure-5). By the said order this Court quashed the Confiscation Case No. 23 of 2007 pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh and the Respondents were directed to release the petitioner's articles forthwith. By the said order this Court quashed the Confiscation Case No. 23 of 2007 pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh and the Respondents were directed to release the petitioner's articles forthwith. In that view of the matter, the learned Counsel added, that the pendency of the criminal prosecution of the petitioner would tantamount to miscarriage of justice and misuse of the process of the Court which was liable to be quashed. The articles which were seized have already been released in favour of the petitioner. The police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet yet, it is nowhere mentioned as. to what provisions of law, control order or unification order as framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been violated by the petitioner so as to attract the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 6. Mr. Kumar asserted that the stock limits, distribution and transportation etc. on rice, wheat and other limited articles were abolished in view of the notification issued by the Central Government dated 15.2.2002 and adopted by the Government of Jharkhand vide letter No.559 dated 24.4.2002 (Annexure-7). 7. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State did not dispute the legal position. The learned A.P.P. failed to point out as to which provision of law much less the orders/unification order has been contravened by the petitioner so as to attract the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. Admittedly, the stock limit distribution and transportation on the rice and wheat have been abolished by the notification of the Central Government which have been adopted by Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 24.4.2002. There appears substance in the argument that the prosecution has raised only suspicion that the food-grains seized from the truck and the godown of the petitioner belonged to the Food Corporation of India, without any evidence whatsoever and seized articles have been released in favour of the petitioner under the .orders of this Court referred to hereinbefore. In the facts and circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioner is bad in law. Accordingly, the entire prosecution of the petitioner including the order taking cognizance dated 7.8.2007 against the petitioner in Barhi P.S. Case No. 63 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 865 of 2007 is quashed and this petition is allowed.