Patna High Court
Jagarnath Prasad Gupta @ Jaganath Pd. ... vs The State Of Bihar on 11 September, 2017
Author: Sanjay Priya
Bench: Sanjay Priya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.17484 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -181 Year- 2012 Thana -KISHUNPUR District- SUPAUL
===========================================================
Jagarnath Prasad Gupta @ Jaganath Pd. Gupta, Son of Late Bhola Prasad Gupta
Resident of Village - Saraigarh, P.S. - Kisanpur, District - Supaul
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. D.N. Tiwari, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 11-09-2017
1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated
18.7.2013passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, in Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 181 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1614 of 2012 by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
2. The prosecution case is that the informant being Block Development Officer, Saraigarh, filed his written report before the Officer-in-Charge, alleging therein that on complaint of the consumers, the informant made inspection of the shop of the petitioner and as per verification of stock and sale register, the stock Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17484 of 2014 dt.11-09-2017 2/4 was found nil. The allegation against the petitioner that he lifted 17.08 quintals of wheat and 25.62 quintals of rice under the Antodaya Scheme on 27.08.2012 and distribution of the same was shown on 28 to 30th August, 2012 against 122 coupons was found to be true. It is further alleged that on 27.08.2012, 90 quintals of wheat of BPL Scheme and 135 quintals of rice has also been lifted by the petitioner, out of which 778 coupons of 77.80 quintals of wheat of BPL Scheme were shown distributed and 12.20 quintals of wheat alleged to have been found short. The distribution of rice on 853 coupons relating to 127.95 was shown distributed and 7.20 quintals of rice should have been available in the stock of the petitioner, but the petitioner has shown entire stock of the food-grains by showing the stock nil.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during investigation, the police did not find any incriminating material against the petitioner and submitted Final Form against him.
5. From paragraph-18 of the case diary it would be apparent that coupons were handed over by the petitioner to the informant, but the informant did not accept those coupons on the ground that seizure list has already been prepared. The entire evidence collected during investigation clearly shows that subsequently, the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17484 of 2014 dt.11-09-2017 3/4 petitioner has deposited the coupons of food grains alleged to have been short in the shop of the petitioner and the allegation that coupons were found in possession of the petitioner is baseless and incorrect.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of Section 11 of the Act, the order taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate is bad in law. It has further been submitted that there is no violation of Section 3 of the Act and, therefore, the order taking cognizance is bad in law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in 2006(4) PLJR 167 (Kamleshwari Singh Vrs. The State of Bihar) and 2011 (4) PLJR 21 (Harendra Kishore Singh @ Harendra Singh Vrs. State of Bihar) which supports the submission of the petitioner - that cognizance taken against the petitioner despite Final Form submitted by police, as mistake of fact i.e. constituting no offence - under Section 11, no cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate in such a case. As such, the order taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate is bad in law.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is not in accordance with law. As such, the impugned order dated 18.7.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, in Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 181 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1614 of 2012, is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17484 of 2014 dt.11-09-2017 4/4 hereby quashed.
9. This Criminal Miscellaneous application is accordingly allowed.
(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 24/09/2017 Transmission 24/09/2017 Date