Jharkhand High Court
Shamim Ahmed vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 May, 2017
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1245 of 2009
Shamim Ahmed ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
---------
C.A.V. No. 28/04/2017 Pronounced on 05/05/2017
This Cr.M.P is directed against the order dated 14.06.2006 by
reasons of which cognizance was taken under Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act against the petitioner and for quashing the entire
criminal proceeding in connection with Govindpur Case No. 130 of 1998
(G.R. No. 2181 of 1998) now pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Dhanbad
and also against the order dated 27.02.2007 by reasons of which no
bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner without
waiting for service report of summon and all subsequent orders by
reasons of which process under section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C has been
issued.
The prosecution case has been lodged by the Block Supply Officer
at the instance of the S.D.O, Dhanbad alleging therein that on receipt of
confidential information that one Tanker loaded with Kerosine oil was
standing nearing Anup Automobiles. It is alleged that during the
inspection the driver of the tanker fled away whereas the Khalasi namely,
Firoz was apprehended. It is alleged that on interrogation the Khalasi has
disclosed that the Kerosene oil was loaded on 23.06.1998 from Ranchi
depot and it was to be unloaded in Anup Automobiles and for this purpose
the tanker was standing near the said automobiles.
It is further alleged that one week back Kerosene oil was sold to
said Anup Automobiles. It is alleged that on demand the papers relating
to kerosene oil could not produce the papers relating to Kerosene oil it
was presumed by the informant that the tanker was brought near Anup
Automobiles for unloading the same and for mixing the same with patrol.
It appears that police after investigation submitted final form on
30.04.2006vide final form number 118 of 2006 under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against owner of the Tanker, Abdul Rauf and Khalasi of the Tanker, Firoz and owner of the Anup Automobiles, Prakash Kumar Saria and petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. It further appears that on 14.06.2006 learned S.D.J.M. has taken cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, hence this petition was filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying the report of the Assistant Supply Officer, Chatra who has stated that on 23.06.1998 M/s Simeria Sales have lifted 9214 liter kerosene oil for distributing it at Itkhori Block and 3774 liters for Gidhor Block and the aforesaid kerosene oil was distributed by the dealers. So no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that I.O has not taken into consideration and submitted the final form and cognizance has been taken, which is bad in law and further submitted that without waiting of service report of summons, and issuance of processes under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C is fit to be set aside.
On the other hand learned A.P.P has referred to the provisions of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C and submitted that from perusal of the case diary it appears that the learned court taking into consideration the provision of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C has taken cognizance. It is also submitted that Annexure-2 of the petition which is relied by the petitioner is not a part of the investigation and submitted by police under Section 173(2), it cannot be looked into, hence there is no illegality in this order and this Cr.M.P is fit to be dismissed.
After hearing the parties and going through the records of this case and also considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, admittedly Annexure-2 relying by the counsel for the petitioner is not part of the investigation of the final form under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, and accordingly, first part of the order upholding the order taking cognizance dated 14.06.2006 is, hereby, dismissed but so far as issuance of processes vide order dated 27.02.2007, whereby execution of the warrant of arrest has not been received and further petitioner has been declared hostile and the case of Md. Salim has been split up and without receipt of the service report of warrant of arrest or process 82 and 83 Cr.P.C, fresh process has been issued against the petitioner vide order dated 15.07.2008 is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the Cr.M.P No. 1245 of 2009 is allowed to that extent. Since this is an old case, the trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law and take steps for conclusion of trial expeditiously and preferably within a period one year.
Let the lower court records be sent back to the court below.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Satayendra/