Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumar Sahu And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand on 23 January, 2013
Author: R.R.Prasad
Bench: R.R.Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P No. 2476 of 2012
1. Raj Kumar Sahu
2. Ajay Kumar Sahu
3. Arun Kumar Sahu
4. Tarkeshwar Agrawal
5. Nasimuddin Ansari
6. Sambhu Rai
7. Arun Kumar............... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand ............ Opp. Party
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad
......
For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. APP
......
3./23.01.2013Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
This application has been filed for quashing of the first information report of Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 958/12 (G.R. No. 5254/2012), registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, against the petitioners.
It is the case of the prosecution that when a Truck was found standing near Sukhdeo Nagar, bags of rice were being loaded over it after bringing the bags of rice from Auto Rikshaw from the house of petitioner no. 4 Tarkeshwar Agrawal. Altogether 391 bags of rice were found loaded over the Truck bearing registration No. CG 10 C 4571. On such allegation, the F.I.R. was lodged, which was registered as Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 958/12, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the allegation that the petitioners had indulged themselves in selling the rice in black market. The said first information report has been sought to be quashed on the ground that the allegation made therein, does not constitute any offence whatsoever as the petitioners have not violated any of the Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that presently there has been no Order regulating sell, purchase, possession, transportation etc. with respect to rice in vogue and thereby, petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Nothing was placed before me that an order, issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, is in vogue regulating sell, purchase, possession, transportation etc. relating to rice.
In that view of the matter, having possession of even 391 bags of rice, will not constitute offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Accordingly, the first information report of Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 958/12 (G.R. No. 5254/2012), registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, is hereby quashed so far as these petitioners are concerned.
In the result, this application stands allowed.
(R.R.Prasad, J) Mukund/