Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 404 (JHR)

Ramjanam Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2024-04-15

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet No.33 of 2020 dated 10.09.2020 and the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Palamau in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.20 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1832 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the said case is now pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Palamau. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner being a shopkeeper under the Public Distribution System, could not provide rice to half of the cardholders as the stock of rice was finished and the petitioner fled away from his office. Police after investigation of the case, submitted charge-sheet alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has been instituted against the petitioner on the basis of mere suspicion. No offence punishable either under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is made out against the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was not present in his shop at the time of alleged occurrence. The petitioner was having chest pain and weakness and due to these reasons, he went for his treatment at Daltonganj and after treatment, the doctor advised him to take rest for 20 (twenty) days and because of COVID-19 outbreak, the petitioner was not in his shop. It is next submitted that no control order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has been violated and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is not made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that there is no allegation of disobedience of any order promulgated by any public servant. Hence, no offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that there is no allegation of disobedience of any order promulgated by any public servant. Hence, no offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the allegation that the petitioner did not show the price-list in his shop cannot constitute the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Hence, it is submitted that the charge-sheet No.33 of 2020 dated 10.09.2020 and the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Palamau in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.20 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1832 of 2020 which is now pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Palamau, be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner to quash and set aside the charge-sheet No.33 of 2020 dated 10.09.2020 and the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Palamau in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.20 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1832 of 2020 which is now pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Palamau and fairly submits that there is no allegation of any control order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 having been violated but it is submitted that the allegation constitute the offence in respect of which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that from the plain reading of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, makes it is crystal clear that the penalties envisaged under Section 7(1) of the said Act can only be imposed if and only if there is contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the said Act and the penalties under Section 7(2) can be imposed if a person to whom a direction is given under Clause (b) of the subsection (4) of Section 3 fails to comply with the direction but as has fairly been submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State that there is no material in the record to suggest that any control order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of which the penalty is sought to be imposed upon the petitioner under Section 7 of the said act exists nor is there any allegation against the petitioner of not complying with the direction given under Section 3 (4) (b) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is not made out. 7. So far as the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients are that:- (i) There was promulgation of an order, (ii) Such promulgation was made by a public servant, (iii) Public Servant was legally empowered to make the promulgation, (iv) Promulgation directed not to do certain things or to take certain orders in connection with certain property in his possession or management, (v) The accused knew of the promulgation, (vi) The accused disobeyed it, and (vii) Such disobedience caused or tended to cause obstruction, annoyance, injury or risk of the same lawfully employed or tender to cause danger to human life, health or safety or a riot or affray. 8. 8. It is a settled principle of law that Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. envisages that cognizance of the offence inter alia for the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code can be taken only on the basis of the complaint in writing by a public servant concerned whose order has been violated or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. 9. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no material in the record to suggest that there was any promulgation of any order and the petitioner having knowledge of the same has violated the same nor any case has been instituted on the basis of any complaint by any public servant concerned or some other public servant whom the public servant concerned is administratively subordinate. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate has committed a gross illegality by taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code without the complaint in writing of any public servant who has promulgated any order or any public servant superior to him. 11. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the charge-sheet No.33 of 2020 dated 10.09.2020 and the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Palamau in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.20 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1832 of 2020 which is now pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Palamau, be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the charge-sheet No.33 of 2020 dated 10.09.2020 and the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Palamau in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.20 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1832 of 2020 which is now pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Palamau, is quashed and set aside. 13. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.