Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 232 (JHR)

Satyendra Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-02-14

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Prashant Kumar, J.-This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.3.1988 passed in Mandu P.S.case No. 470 of 1986. whereby learned Special Judge Essential Commodities Act. Hazarlbagh took cognizance against petitioners under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and under Sections 414/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is submitted by Mr. A.N. Deo learned counsel for the petitioners that after repeal of Bihar Coal Control Order in the year 1984 coal did not remain essential commodity. Therefore, no license required for dealing in coal. Accordingly, he submits that petitioners had not violated any control order. Thus, no offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is made out. He further submits that there is no material to show that any theft was reported in relation to coal in question Thus, no offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned Addl. P.P. submits that Bihar Coal Control Order, 1956 was repealed by, Bihar Trade Article (License Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred as Unification Order). He further submits that as per Schedule I Part E of Unification Order coal was essential commodity. He then submits that coal has been deleted from Unification Order vide Notification No.GSR 12 dated 21.04.1992. Accordingly, he submits that on the date of offence i.e. 13.1.1996, it is essential for the petitioners to take license und", Unification Order for dealing in coal. He submits that at the tin1e of raid, petitioners did not produce license, thus, they violated the provisions of Unification Order. Accordingly, offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is made out. 4. So far offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. it is submitted that same can be looked into by the court below at the time of framing of charge. 5. Having heard submissions,. I have gone through the records of the case. 6. Admittedly, occurrence took place on 13.01.1986. It is also an admitted position that Bihar Coal Control Order repealed by Unification Order in 1984. It is provided under Unification Order that all the dealers are require to take license for dealing in any materials, details of which given in Schedule-I and II. From perusal of Schedule-1. Part (E) of Unification Order. I find that coal was initially essential commodity. It is provided under Unification Order that all the dealers are require to take license for dealing in any materials, details of which given in Schedule-I and II. From perusal of Schedule-1. Part (E) of Unification Order. I find that coal was initially essential commodity. It appears that coal was deleted from Schedule I of Unification Order vide Notification No.GSR 12 dated 21.04.1992. Thus, it is clear that on the date of occurrence coal was an essential commodity thus, for dealing in coal license required under Unification Order. It is alleged that petitioners have no license to deal with coal under Unification Order for dealing in coal. Thus, if the said allegations are taken to be true then in my view offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is made out. 7. Now, coming to the next contention that no offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is made out, in my view, can be dealt with by the Court below at the time of framing of charge. If petitioners so desire, can file application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. The court below is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Application disposed of.