Jharkhand High Court
Biseswar Mandal & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 November, 2012
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 675 of 2009
1. Biseswar Mandal
2. Dular Manjhi ... ....Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand ... ....Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
For the Petitioners: Mr. M.B. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
For the State: Mr. R. Mukhopadhyay, APP
C.A.V. ON 02/11/2012 DELIVERED ON /11/2012
Prashant Kumar,J : This is an application for quashing the order dated
12.01.2009passed by learned C.J.M., Deoghar in connection with Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 331 of 2008 ( T.R. No. 1229 of 2009) whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodity Act.
2. It is alleged that on 01.05.2008 at about 4.05 p.m. a raid was conducted in the fair price shop of petitioner no. 2 Dular Manjhi situated at village- Pathri under Jamua Panchyat in the district of Deoghar and it was found that the shop of petitioner no. 2 was closed. It is further alleged that out side the shop a notice board was hanged but in the said notice board no description was given regarding the storage in the godown. It appears that the raiding party went in the courtyard and say in side and shop and found that the same was empty. It is alleged that on 30.1.2008 petitioner no. 2 lifted 3.68 quintals of wheat, 5.76 quintals of rice ( supposed to be distributed amont the BPL persons) and 6.73 quintals of wheat and 17.81 quintals of rice ( supposed to be distributed under the Antyodaya scheme), from the State Food Corporation, Deoghar. It is alleged that the said articles sold in the black market.
It is further alleged that on the same date at about 5.30 p.m. a raid conducted in the fair price shop of petitioner no. 1 Biseswar Mandal situated at Kharagdiha, Panchyat Jamua in the district of Deoghar and during the said raid, the shop of the petitioner was found closed. However, the same was opened by his son. On physical verification, no articles found inside the shop though petitioner had lifted 10.73 quintals of wheat and 28.43 quintal of rice (supposed to be distributed among BPL persons) and 6.55 quintals of wheat and 10.24 quintals of rice (supposed to be distributed under the Antyodaya scheme) from the State Food Corporation, Deoghar. Accordingly, it was presumed that he sold those articles in black marketing. During the raid, it was also found that on the notice board, no description -2- regarding the storage of articles lifted for distribution had been mentioned. It appears that on the basis of said allegation, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2008 instituted and police took up investigation. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet under section 7 of the E.C. Act, whereunder it is mentioned that petitioner has violated the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles ( License Unification) Order, 1984 and Bihar Public Distribution System ( Control) Order, 2001. Accordingly on submission of charge sheet, learned CJM, Deoghar took cognizance of the offence by passing the impugned order,which has been challenged in this application.
3. It is submitted by Sri B.M. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that impugned order is illegal because in the FIR as well as in the charge sheet, it has not been mentioned that petitioners violated provisions of which Control Order promulgated under section 3 of the E.C. Act. In support of aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments in Govind Mahto & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in [2003(4)JCR 630(jhr)], Amit Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr reported in [2005(1) East Cr. C. 65 (Jhr)] and Arun Kumar Singh & Anr Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in [2012(2) East Cr. C. 360(jhr)].
4. On the other hand, learned Additional P.P. submits that aforesaid submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is worth rejectable as in the charge sheet the Investigating Officer had specifically mentioned that petitioners violated the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles ( Licence Unification) Order, 1984 and Bihar Public Distribution System ( Control) Order, 2001. Accordingly, he submits that there is no merit int his application, therefore, the same be dismissed.
5. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the records of the case. There is direct allegation in the FIR that petitioners lifted wheat and rice for distributing it among the BPL persons and under the Antyodaya scheme, but they sold those articles in black market. After investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet and in the charge sheet, it is specifically mentioned that petitioners violated various provisions of Bihar Trade Articles ( Licence Unification) Order, 1984 and Bihar Public Distribution System ( Control) Order, 2001. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that it was not mentioned in the charge sheet that petitioners violated which control order, does not inspire confidence.
6. From perusal of the aforesaid judgments relied by the petitioners, it is clear that the said judgments were passed because in those cases it was not alleged that the petitioners were found violating -3- any order promulgated under section 3 of the Essential Commodity Act. In the instant case, as noticed above, there is specific allegation against the petitioners that petitioners violated the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles ( Licence Unification) Order, 1984 and Bihar Public Distribution System ( Control) Order, 2001. Thus, the facts of this case is different from the facts of aforesaid cases. Under the said circumstance, the ratio decided in aforesaid cases have no application in this case.
7. In view of the discussion made above, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
( Prashant Kumar,J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated /11/2012
Sharda/NAFR