Jharkhand High Court
Govind Mahto And Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand on 13 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(3)JCR176(JHR)], 2004 CRI LJ (NOC) 178, 2004 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 1071, (2003) 2 EASTCRIC 621, (2006) 2 JLJR 561, (2003) 3 JCR 176 (JHA), (2004) 15 ALLINDCAS 466 (JHA)
Author: Hari Shankar Prasad
Bench: Hari Shankar Prasad
ORDER Hari Shankar Prasad, J.
1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'Code') has been filed for quashing the order dated 9.11.2002 whereby cognizance has been taken.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that Shri Awadh Kishore Thakur, supply inspector, Chandankiyari lodged an FIR with Chas PS on 31.8.2002 being Chas PS Case No. 116 of 2002 alleging therein that he got a confidential information that dealers of public distribution system of Chandankiyari have taken wheat of red cards to Chas Bazar area for the purpose of black marketing and accordingly the informant informed the officer-in-charge Chas PS and he along with District Supply Officer. Chandankiyari left for Chas Bazar in a motorcycle and they reached Jodhadih More at 2.30 pm where the officer-in-charge, Chas PS was present along with officers of the department and truck bearing registration No. BR-20G-866 and BR-20F-8674 were standing towards Jodhadih More and during the course of inspection/search, he found in truck No. BR- 20G-866 120 bags of wheat weighing 50 kg. each and in truck No. BR-20F-8674 he found 150 bags of wheat weighing 50 kg. each and on inquiry from the two dealers, namely. Govind Mahto and Dilip Sharma, he came to know that they were carrying the red card holders wheat and on being asked they produced the receipt of purchase from the Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation, sold by them to dealers. He came to know that 169 bags of what sold to Govind Mahto, the total weight 86.10 quintal for selling in his in Jodhadih panchayat while in truck No. BR-20G-866 only 120 bags of wheat weighing 60 quintal was found and nothing was told to them about the shortage and, therefore, it was believed that the wheat which fell short of the required quantity was sold in black market. 160 bags of wheat was sold to Dilip Sharma but there were 159 bags of wheat, he could not explain the shortage of wheat by one bag. Further case of the prosecution is that trucks in question when going straight to Jodhadih panchayat via Manpur preferred rout to Chandankiyari to Chas for the purpose of black marketing and they were caught at the Jodhadih More. The driver of truck No. BR-20G-866 disclosed that he was taking wheat from Chandankiyari to Chas but he could not say where he was going to unload the wheat at Chas as wheat owner was coming from behind. The FIR further disclosed that both the dealers were taking wheat from Chandankiyari to Chas Bazar for black marketing.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is suspicion only and nothing more because they were not caught selling the wheat in black market and there was no route prescribed in the movement chart of trucks in question as to from which route trucks were to pass to the destination. Learned counsel further pointed out that order taking cognizance does not disclose that petitioners were engaged in any illegal sale of red cards wheat to attract any Order promulgated under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and there is no allegation of violation of the provision to attract implication of the provision of law against the petitioners and, therefore, they cannot be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and seizure of two trucks of the petitioners carrying purchased wheat from Bihar Food and Civil Supply Corporation was in gross violation of the statutory provisions of law. He further submitted that there is also no allegation against the petitioners that they were found violating any Order as promulgated under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel failed to state as to what provisions of Essential Commodities Act have been violated.
5. On perusal of FIR it also appears clear that only vague allegation that Govind Mahto and Dilip Sharma was going and will do this or that, has been levelled against the petitioners while the allegation should be specific and unequivocal. But since these allegations, which are vague in nature have been levelled against the petitioners and in Bhajanlal's case 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 it has been clearly dealt with that when the allegation is not specific creates confusion and High Court can interfere. But the instant case is such where there is no scope for intervention as learned Court below has found sufficient materials against the petitioners and, therefore, this miscellaneous application is allowed and order taking cognizance dated 9.11.2002 against the petitioners are hereby set aside.