Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 818 (JHR)

Satya Narayan v. State of Jharkhanda

2013-07-08

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
ORDER Since on similar allegation case of the F.I.R with respect to other co-accused has been quashed, the matter was heard and is being finally disposed of. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the first information report of Koderma P.S. Case No.549 of 2011 (G.R. No.1178 of 2011) instituted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, 414, 406, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the Senior Assistant Godown Manager, got 410 bags of Rice loaded at the godown of S.F.C. Koderma on a truck on the pretext of taking it to the Godown of State Food Corporation, Markachho (hereinafter referred to be as “SFC”), but the truck instead of coming to the Godown of SFC Markachho, proceeded towards Bihar. In the way, when it was intercepted, the Driver disclosed that at the instance of Bibhuti Bhushan Ram, Sr. Assistant Manager, co-accused Suresh Sao-the transporter and also the Assistant Godown Manager, SFC, Markachho (petitioner), the truck loaded with Rice was being taken to Bihar instead of Godown at Markachho. 4. On such allegation, the case was registered as Koderma P.S. Case No.549 of 2011 (G.R. No.1178 of 2011) under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, 414, 406, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, though no allegation of commission of any forgery or even misappropriation was there. Perhaps the case was lodged under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the premise that attempt was being made to commit offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 5. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accepting the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner to be true, no case is made out either under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act or under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, 414, 406, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In this respect, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the allegation levelled against the petitioner is accepted to be true that it is being transported to the State of Bihar instead of taking it to SFC Godown, Markachho, it was at the stage of preparation and as such, offence never gets completed. In this respect, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the allegation levelled against the petitioner is accepted to be true that it is being transported to the State of Bihar instead of taking it to SFC Godown, Markachho, it was at the stage of preparation and as such, offence never gets completed. Moreover, it can never be said that the petitioner has violated any of the provision of any of the order issued in terms of Section 3 of the E.C. Act with respect to Sale, Purchase, Storage and Transportation etc. 6. It was further submitted that there has been no allegation whatsoever of commission of the offence of forgery or even of misappropriation and, therefore, aforesaid offences, never get attracted and that at the same time, it has never been the case of the prosecution that Rice, in question, was the stolen property and under the circumstances question of committing offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code also does not arise. 7. It was submitted that taking into account all these aspects of the matter, FIR of the co-accused, namaly, Bibhuti Bhushan Ram had been quashed in Cr.M.P.No.68 of 2012 8. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that though FIR with respect to other co-accused has been quashed, but some more material would have come during investigation. 9. It appears that in the earlier case, a counter affidavit had been filed wherein same facts had been reiterated upon which FIR had been lodged and that in the realm of the facts nothing new is expected to come. 10. 9. It appears that in the earlier case, a counter affidavit had been filed wherein same facts had been reiterated upon which FIR had been lodged and that in the realm of the facts nothing new is expected to come. 10. Thus, the case of the prosecution appears to be that instead of truck loaded with Rice being taken to go-down of SFC, Markachho, the same was being taken to the State of Bihar though according to the case of the prosecution, the truck Driver had never crossed the border and, as such, the act of the accused persons were at the stage of preparation and, therefore, it can be said that an attempt was being made to commit offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, but since it has never been the case of the prosecution that provision of any order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act has been contravened or violated, one cannot be held to be guilty for making attempt to commit offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Furthermore, there has been absolutely no allegation either of committing offence of forgery, misappropriation or cheating. Nor there has been any allegation that Rice, which was being transported was stolen property. 11. Under the circumstances, no offence, under which case has been registered, gets attracted. Since FIR was quashed with respect to other accused, the case of the prosecution appears to be bad. 12. Accordingly, first information report of Koderma P.S. Case No.549 of 2011 (G.R. No.1178 of 2011) instituted under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420, 414, 406, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, is, hereby, quashed. 13. In the result, this application stands allowed.