Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 553 (JHR)

Arun Nag v. State of Jharkhand

2012-04-12

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal case of E.C. Case No.21 of 2001 (arising out of Kolebira P.S. Case No.20 of 2001) including the order dated 20.06.2001, passed by the then learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been taken against the petitioners. 3. The case of the prosecution which appears from the F.I.R. is that when the informant received an information that rice is being unloaded from a truck at the godown of the petitioner No.1, raid was laid, whereby, they found a truck standing, in front of the house of petitioner No.1, from which bags of rice were being unloaded. When documents were asked to be produced, no document was produced and hence, 56 bags of rice, each containing 50 k.g., were seized and a case was lodged suspecting the rice to be the stolen property. 4. Accordingly, case was registered under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offences, punishable under Section 414 of the I.P.C. and also under Section 7 of the E.C. Act was taken which is under-challenge. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, submits that accepting the entire allegation in its entirety to be true, no offence is made out either under Section 414 or under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. In this respect, it was submitted that it is only suspicion upon which it was said that the rice which was recovered, was stolen one. There has been no such foundational fact for raising suspicion of rice being stolen property. Simply on account of the fact that the documents relating to the purchase of rice could not be produced, the same in absence of any other material cannot be assumed to be a stolen property. There should be some reasonable basis for suspecting the property to be stolen and as such, no offence is made out under Section 414 of the I.P.C. 6. There should be some reasonable basis for suspecting the property to be stolen and as such, no offence is made out under Section 414 of the I.P.C. 6. It was further submitted that on the day of occurrence, no storage limit with respect to rice or wheat was in force and in that event one cannot be prosecuted under Section 7 of the E.C. Act. Thus, it was submitted that the entire prosecution is fit to be set aside. 7. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that at the time of unloading of the rice at the go-down of the petitioner No.1, documents were asked for from them, but none of the petitioners could show any documents with respect to purchase of the rice and as such, there was every reason to believe that the rice was stolen property and under this situation, the case of the prosecution never warrants to be quashed, at this stage. 8. So far offence under Section 7 of the E.C. Act is concerned, it does get attracted when provision of any order issued under Section 3 is violated. In the instant case, there has been no mentioning of contravention of the provision of any order. Moreover, it has never been denied that on the day of occurrence, no storage limit, with respect to rice and wheat was in force. Under this situation, the prosecution under Section 7 of the E.C. Act cannot be sustained. 9. So far offence under Section 414 of the I.P.C. is concerned, one can be said to have committed offence when he voluntarily assist in concealing or disposing of or making away with the property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property. For prosecuting under Section 414 of the I.P.C., the prosecution needs to put necessary ingredients that the property, in question was stolen. Even if there has been reason to believe that the property is stolen, one can be put to prosecution, but there should be some basis for forming an opinion that property appears to be stolen. 10. Here in the instant case, since documents relating to the sale was not produced, it was taken to be stolen which would not be sufficient in absence of any other material showing the property being stolen or having reason to suspect that property to be the stolen. 11. 10. Here in the instant case, since documents relating to the sale was not produced, it was taken to be stolen which would not be sufficient in absence of any other material showing the property being stolen or having reason to suspect that property to be the stolen. 11. Under the circumstances, no offence seems to have been made out either under Section 414 of the I.P.C. or under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 12. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of E.C. Case No.21 of 2001 (arising out of Kolebira P.S. Case No.20 of 2001) including the order taking cognizance dated 20.06.2001 is hereby, set aside. 13. In the result, this application stands allowed.