Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 535 (JHR)

Bajrani Prasad Agarwal v. State of Jharkhand

2011-06-21

DILIP KUMAR SINHA

body2011
ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of his entire criminal proceedings, arising out of Mango (MGM) P.S. Case No.401 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No.2505 of 2010 and also for quashment of the order impugned dated 5.2.2011. by which SDJM, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner and others. 2. Prosecution story in short was that when DTO, Jamshedpur in course of checking of the vehicles on Patamda Road intercepted a Tanker bearing registration No. JH 12C 1140, which was carrying about 12,000 litres of Government controlled blue kerosene oil, it was detected that challan and invoice Nos.20112347 B006439 and 641780676 dated 22.9.2010 were issued in the name of Chandagilal Navrang Rai. Ghatshila by the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) office at Burmamines. On investigation, it was also detected that consignment on the Tanker, which was carrying kerosene oil. was already delivered to the consignee at Ghatshila, but even then its challans were found in possession of the driver Sanjay Paswan. Tanker was containing 12,000 litres of Government controlled blue kerosene oil, which was meant to be delivered at Chakradharpur to M/s Agarwal Oil Distributors for which challan and invoice Nos. 20112347-B 006480 and 641801224 dated 23.9.2010 were issued but the tanker was found on different route by way of deviation from original route Chakradharpur as it was going to MGM Medical College. Mango on Patamda Road. Prosecution party presumed that kerosene oil was being taken towards Patamda Road to be sold in the black market and it had already left its original route. The informant in the written report expressed that full documents were not produced by the driver and the cleaner of the tanker and thereby, all the accused contravened the provisions of unification order as framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, which attracted the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. On the basis of written report, the case was instituted against the accused persons including the petitioner, who is the Distributor at Chakradharpur, West Singhbhum, running his business in the name and style of " M/s Agarwal Oil Distributors". 3. Case diary, which was called for, has been received. 4. The learned counsel Mr. On the basis of written report, the case was instituted against the accused persons including the petitioner, who is the Distributor at Chakradharpur, West Singhbhum, running his business in the name and style of " M/s Agarwal Oil Distributors". 3. Case diary, which was called for, has been received. 4. The learned counsel Mr. Mukherjee submits on the fact that the invoices, which were found in possession of the driver, were genuine documents, according to the procedure of distribution of kerosene oil through Indian Oil Corporation to its dealers and distributors. Invoices are prepared in three copies, to which one copy was given to the driver, who carries the kerosene oil in the tanker, second copy was retained with the Indian Oil Corporation and third copy is issued in the name of the Distributor/Consignee. Driver of the tanker was supposed to obtain the signature of the Distributor/Consignee after delivery of the kerosene oil to the Distributor and the same was returned to the Indian Oil Corporation. Prior to the alleged date of occurrence, driver had already delivered almost similar quantity of kerosene oil at Ghatshila to a different Distributor and after obtaining the receipt, he was carrying kerosene oil in the second trip to Chakradharpur at the depot of the petitioner, who was the Distributor, but as certain break down developed in the tanker, the driver was on way to Mango on Patamda Road for repair of the break down and in the meantime, the tanker was intercepted. It was not the case that the petitioner or the driver of the tanker at any point of time was found selling kerosene oil in the black market. Entire prosecution case is based upon suspicion as the invoices of the kerosene oil being carried on the Tanker were to be delivered at the retail shop of the petitioner at Chakradharpur. were found in possession of the driver, besides the receipt of consignment of the kerosene oil, which was already delivered at Ghatshila and for such act of driver the petitioner, a dealer of Chakradharpur cannot be held liable. 5. I find from perusal of the charge-sheet that it was submitted for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and accordingly, cognizance was taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the accused persons including the petitioner without specifying the nature of the alleged offence. 5. I find from perusal of the charge-sheet that it was submitted for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and accordingly, cognizance was taken under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the accused persons including the petitioner without specifying the nature of the alleged offence. It was nowhere stated in the charge-sheet that what provision of law as framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been contravened by the petitioner so as to attract an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Similarly, SDJM, Jamshedpur also error by not disclosing that what provision of control order, unification order or licensing order has been contravened by the petitioner so as to call for offence under Section 7 of the Act in the instant case and without specifying the nature of offence, cognizance order is liable to be set aside. 6. In the facts and circumstances, criminal proceeding of the petitioner cannot be sustained under law for the reasons stated above. This petition is allowed. Accordingly, entire criminal proceedings including the cognizance order dated 5.2.2011 in so far as it relates to the petitioner Bajranj Prasad Agarwal is concerned are quashed. Petition allowed.