Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 923 (PAT)

Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Pathak v. State of Bihar

2024-09-27

ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL

body2024
Arvind Singh Chandel, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to quash the FIR in connection with Patna Beur PS Case No 561 of 2022 dated 09.11.2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the EC Act. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, on 08.11.2022, the SDO, Patna Sadar got information that at village – Pakari, food grains were stored illegally in the godown of one Vinay Kumar Singh. On the basis of said information, the SDO Sadar gave direction for the enquiry and, accordingly, the Supply Inspector, Patna at about 4 pm, with the police force, enquired and raided the godown of Vinay Kumar Singh. 4. In the raid, 25 plastic bags (machine stitched), 477 plastic bags (hand stitched), each containing 45 Kilograms of Arwa rice weighing 245.58 quintals of general quality and 151 bags, each containing 40 Kilograms of lower quality rice weighing 60.40 quintals, 33 plastic bags, each containing 25 Kilograms of rice (machine stitched), total 8 quintals and 25 Kilograms and one quintal of wheat kept in two plastic bags, total 314.63 Kilograms of Arwa rice and one quintal of wheat kept in 688 bags have been seized. 5. At the time of raid, two persons, namely, Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Pathak and Anil Saw (both the petitioners in this case) were present there. Since they failed to produce any document with regard to the seized food grains, therefore, it is alleged that the food grains were stored in the godown for the purpose of black marketing. It is also alleged that the seized food grains prima facie appeared to be of Government scheme. Thus, the food grains were seized and the FIR was lodged under Section 7 of the E C Act. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case maliciously only on the suspicion. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not PDS dealers. Therefore, Section 7 of the EC Act does not attract against them. Petitioner No 2 is the proprietor doing the business of food grains and petitioner No 1 is the staff of petitioner No 2. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not PDS dealers. Therefore, Section 7 of the EC Act does not attract against them. Petitioner No 2 is the proprietor doing the business of food grains and petitioner No 1 is the staff of petitioner No 2. Petitioner No 2 had purchased the seized food grains from M/s R S Enterprises, Annapurna Galla Bhandar, Shiv Parwati Galla Bhandar and Maa Kali Traders. Learned counsel further submits that wheat/rice do not come under the Control Orders and the respondents arbitrarily seized the food grains and lodged the FIR. It is also submitted that the trade of rice has been delicensed from the year of 2002 and the restriction has been lifted. The movement of control, storage limit, requirement of licence, maintenance of stock register, issuance of cash memo, display of stock and price position have been abolished, therefore, petitioner No 2 was entitled to purchase and sell the rice in the open market. 7. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Shriram Rai & Anr vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. { 2006 (1) PLJR 504 , Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, { 1990 (2) PLJR 520 } and Tarapado Ghosh & Ors vs. The State of Bihar, { 1990 (2) PLJR 602 }. 8. It is contended that petitioner No 2 is the proprietor of M/s Shivam Traders registered with the GST and VAT and, being a proprietor of M/s Shivam Traders, is doing the business of food grains. In support of his contention, the petitioner has annexed the receipt of the foodgrains which has been purchased by him from R S Enterprises and Maa Kali Traders (Annexure 2 series). 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the fact that petitioner No 2 is the proprietor of M/s Shivam Traders, registered with the GST and VAT and not a PDS dealer. The receipt (Annexure 2 series) further shows that during the course of his business, petitioner No 2 has purchased the foodgrains from M/s Maa Kali Traders and R S Enterprises. Therefore, in the light of the judgments, as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that the petitioners cannot be held liable under Section 7 of the EC Act. 10. Therefore, in the light of the judgments, as referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that the petitioners cannot be held liable under Section 7 of the EC Act. 10. For the reasons as mentioned herein above, the FIR is liable to be and is, accordingly, quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.