Patna High Court
M/S Raghnath Service ... vs State Of Bihar on 2 April, 2010
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
Criminal Miscellaneous No.340 OF 1999
-----
In the matter of an application under section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
-----
M/S RAGHNATH SERVICE STATION, through
its one of the partners, Sri Prithivi Raj Singh, son of
Late Raghunath Singh, resident of Naya Tola, Sagona,
P.S.-Danapur, Dist.- Patna ..... ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.STATE OF BIHAR
2. R.K.Sinha, Assistant District Supply Officer,
Danapur, Patna, Dist.-Patna. ... ....Opp.Parties.
-------
For the petitioner: None
For the State: Mr.Chandrasen Prasad Singh, APP.
------
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
-------
Rakesh Kumar,J. No one appears for the petitioner.
2. In this case by order dated 25.8.1999, while admitting the case, this court directed that during the pendency of this application further proceedings in the court below shall remain stayed. It appears that at the time of admission this court was intimated that the proceeding is pending before the court below.
3. While invoking the jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, namely, M/s Raghnath Service Station, through one of the partners i.e. Shri Prithivi Raj Singh, has prayed for quashing of the entire prosecution which has been initiated in the form of first information report lodged by one R.K.Sinha, Assistant District Supply Officer, Danapur, Patna, which was registered as Danapur P.S. Case No.84 of 1998 for the offence under section 7 of the 2 Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter as E.C.Act).
4. In the entire petition it has never been stated as to whether after registering the first information report police submitted charge sheet or not. Accordingly, it appears that the petitioner has virtually prayed for quashing of the first information report, mainly, on the ground that the informant had got no authority to conduct the search.
5. As per the first information report it was alleged that on specific information a team of senior officers was constituted and thereafter a raid was conducted in the business premises of the petitioner's petrol pump. On search, huge quantity of blue Kerosene oil was recovered. It was apprehended that the accused persons were selling petrol and diesel by mixing the same with Kerosene oil and, accordingly, a first information report vide Danapur P.S. Case No.84 of 1998 was registered for the offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act. In this case a counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of opposite party no.2, who is informant in the present case and at the relevant time he was posted as Assistant District Supply Officer, Danapur. In paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit he has stated as follows:
"That on 18.3.1998 a confidential report received by Sub.Divisional Officer, Danapur that M/s Raghunath Service Station (Petrol Pump) keeping a huge quantity of blue Kerosene oil at his business premises and selling the Diesel and Petrol mix with K.Oil. On the said information in the leadership of Sub.Divisional Officer, Danapur, then Assistant District Supply Officer, Danapur and others supply Department officer and Police Officers raided the business premises (Petrol Pump) at Bailey Road, Patna. At the time of raid two 3 independent witnesses and a son of the owner (Sri Prithavi Raj Sinha), namly, Chandra Kant Rai were present there. During raid one room in the business premises (Petrol Pump) was checked and 120 ltrs. of blue K.Oil was found in the said room along with two drum and several size of empty drums and different types of measurement tools including 18 Lts. of loose petrol was found in which K. oil was fixed. All the above items were seized as per seizure list in the presence of the independent witnesses and the other officers and police officers,. seizure list was served to owner's son namely Chandra Kant Rai who also put signature as witness on the seizure list. The matter was immediately reported to the Senior Sales Officer of Bharat Petrolem namely Mr.Gautam through wireless who immediately visited the said petrol pump and make retail outlet inspection. Prepared on report and sample of the petrol and diesel were preserved in 4 bottles for laboratories inspection after that an F.I.R. was lodged against the owner of said petrol pump M/s Raghunath Service Station vide Danapur P.S.Case No.84 of 1998 under section 7 E.C. Act by the Assistant District supply Officer, Danapur. It is also relevant to mention that the said sample was sent to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for chemical examination. The report received from the Bharat Pedtrolum Corporation shows the abnormal variation in density beyond permissible limit."
6. On the face of the first information report, it is evident that the offence under section 7 of the E.C. Act was committed by the accused persons. In absence of pendency of any proceeding, it is difficult for this court to examine the allegation of the petitioner while exercising power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the petition it has never been stated that the police after investigation has submitted charge sheet and thereafter proceeding was pending before the Special Judge, E.C. Act. However, it was stated in paragraph-1 of the petition that the case is pending in the 4 court of Special Judge, E.C. Act, Patna contained in annexure-1 to this petition. Annexure-1 is certified copy of the first information report which contains endorsement made by the Special Judge, E.C. Act. As per the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, after registering first information report, the same is to be sent to the concerned court forthwith. Accordingly, it appears that first information report was sent to the concerned court and, as such, endorsement of Special Judge, E.C. Act was made on the first information report. Mere sending of first information report or its receipt in a court cannot be considered as pendency of a case. It appears that the case was at the initial stage of investigation even then the petitioner has approached this court. I am of the view that at this initial stage, it is not required for this court to interfere in the matter.
7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. In view of the rejection of the present petition, the order of stay stands automatically vacated.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith.
Patna High Court, ( Rakesh Kumar, J.) The 2nd April, 2010 NAFR/Md.S.