Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 122 (JHR)

Bijay Kumar Bathwal v. State of Bihar

2012-01-23

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
1. Nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, heard learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Madhupur P.S. Case No.232 of 1997 including the order dated 30.05.1998 under which cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 7 of the E.C. Act against the petitioner. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.12.1997, the informant got an information that one person has purchased K. Oil from the shop of the petitioner illegally, for selling it in a black market. 4. On receiving such information, when the informant reached at Dalmia Bazar at about 4.00 p.m., he found a person selling K. Oil in black market and as such, 160 liters of K.Oil was seized. The said person disclosed his name as Shankar Kumar Jaiswal. He was arrested at the spot and on being quizzed, he disclosed that he had purchased the said K. Oil from the shop of the petitioner for selling it in a black market. 5. On such allegations, the case was registered as Madhupur P.S. Case No.232 of 1997 under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. On submission of the charge sheet, the court, took cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act vide order dated 30.05.1998, which has been challenged in this application. 6. In this application, it has been averred that before lodgment of the case, the shop of the petitioner had never been inspected rather inspection was made after institution of the case, but the inspecting authority did not find any irregularity with the stock of K. Oil. In that view of the matter, the entire criminal proceeding has been sought to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner can never be said to have violated the provision of any control order issued under Section 3 of the E.C. Act nor the petitioner has been alleged to have contravened any of the conditions of the license and, thereby the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. 7. No counter affidavit has been filed and as such the fact pleaded in the petition that no irregularity has been found, when inspection was made, can easily be accepted. 8. 7. No counter affidavit has been filed and as such the fact pleaded in the petition that no irregularity has been found, when inspection was made, can easily be accepted. 8. In such situation, it can never be said that the petitioner has violated any of the provision of the order issued in terms of Section 3 of the E.C. Act with respect to Sale, Purchase, Storage and Transportation etc. of K. Oil. neither it is there that the petitioner has contravened any of the conditions of the license issued to the petitioner. 9. Under the situation, the prosecution against the petitioner under Section 7 of the E.C. Act cannot not be sustained. 10. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of Madhupur P.S. Case No.232 of 1997 including the order dated 30.05.1998 under which cognizance of the offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act has been taken against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 11. In the result, this Cr. Miscellaneous Application is allowed.