Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court

Sripati Jha vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 27 July, 2017

Author: Sanjay Kumar

Bench: Sanjay Kumar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

                    Criminal Miscellaneous No.11712 of 2014
          Arising Out of P.S.Case No. -101 Year- 2010 Thana -SIDHWARA District- DARBHANGA
===========================================================
Sripati Jha Son of Amar Nath Jha Resident of Village- Lalpur, P.S.- Singhwara,
Dist.- Darbhanga

                                                                       .... ....   Petitioner
                                         Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Anil Kumar Singh Son of Late Ambika Prasad Singh, Block Supply Officer,
   Block- Singhwara, P.S.- Singhwara, District- Darbhanga

                                                    .... .... Opposite Parties
===========================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner       : Mrs. Soni Srivastava, Advocate
     For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Humayu Ahmad Khan, APP
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 27 -07-2017

              Heard.

              2. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for

   quashing the order dated 28.01.2012/30.01.2012 passed by learned CJM,

   Darbhanga in Singhwara P.S.Case No.101 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the

   petitioner was summoned to face the trial for the offence under Section 7 of the

   Essential Commodities Act.

              3. The informant happens to be Block Supply Officer, Singhwara. He

   lodged FIR with Singhwara P.S. alleging inter-alia that while he was on patrolling

   along with armed forces, saw two people in a shop exchanging something and on

   interrogation they disclosed their name. The petitioner was one of them who

   disclosed that the said shop belongs to him and he used to sell gas cylinder after

   taking from the godown of M/s Hnuman Gas Agency, Jajuar, Muzaffarpur for the
                                2/4




convenience of consumers. The informant demanded documents but none of them

produced any paper. The informant seized 14 gas cylinders and 60 consumer

cards and other articles from the said shop. The matter was investigated and

police submitted chargesheet for the offence under Sections 379, 411 and

120B/34 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act ( LPG

Control Order 2000 ) against the petitioner and other co-accused. The learned

CJM after going through the material on record dropped the proceeding against

the owner of M/s Hnuman Gas Agency, Jajuar, Muzaffarpur and took cognizance

of offence against this petitioner and other co-accused under Section 7 of the

Essential Commodities Act.

           4.    It has been submitted that M/s Hnuman Gas Agency, Jajuar,

Muzaffarpur is an authorized agency for distribution of gas cylinders. The father

of this petitioner was authorized by the said agency, who delivered the gas

cylinders to the consumers residing at far distance at the fare charge of Rs.18/-

and for that purpose a no Objection Certificate was also obtained by the said

agency from the Block Development Officer, Singhwara. The petitioner or his

father has not violated any terms and conditions of LPG ( Regulation of Supply

and Distribution) Order, 2000. It was also submitted that the learned CJM had no

authority to take cognizance and so the order is fit to be quashed.

           5. The learned APP on the other hand opposed the submissions.

           6. On perusal of record, I find that this case was registered on the

basis of written report of Block Supply Officer wherein it has been alleged that

the petitioner was found in illegal trade of supply of gas cylinders in violation of

the control orders. In this regard, I find that there is a provision under LPG (

Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 for carrying business of

selling LPG under clause 6 of LPG ( Regulation of Supply and Distribution)

Order,   2000.    According     to   said   order   no    person      other   than   a
                                3/4




Government Oil Company, a parallel marketeer or a distributor shall be engaged

in the business of selling liquefied petroleum gas to the consumer. The petitioner

has produced a no objectionable certificate from the BDO but it does not justify

as to whether the BDO was competent to issue such certificate under the LPG

regulatory order. The agreement between the oil company and distributor would

be also relevant in determining as to whether the agency was competent to

appoint any sub-distributors. In case diary, I find that the witnesses have

supported the allegation of illegal distribution of gas cylinders by the petitioner.

So far cognizance against this petitioner by CJM is concerned, I would like to

quote the provision of Section 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act which

runs as follows:

            "Section 12 AA- Offences Triable by Special Court
            notwithstanding anything contained in the code--"all offences
            under this Act shall be triable by the special Court constituted for
            the area in which the offence has been committed or where there
            are more special Courts than other for such area by such one of
            them as may be specified in this behalf by the High Court."

              7. Thus, from the perusal of sub-clause (e) of Clause (1) of Section

12-AA, it is evident that the power to take cognizance under the Act has been

given to the Special Court. From the perusal of the provisions contained in sub-

section (2) of Section 12-A and sub-section (e) of Clause (1) of Section 12-AA,

there is no manner of doubt that the cognizance of the offence under the Act can

be taken by a Judge of the Special Court appointed by the High Court in terms of

sub-section (2) of Section 12-A of the Act.

              8. Be that as it may, I find that in view of the above provision, the

order dated 28.01.2012/30.01.2012 passed by CJM, Darbhanga in Singhwara

P.S.Case No.101 of 2010 is not sustainable as there is nothing on record to show

that the CJM was appointed in terms of sub-section 12-A of the Act.

             9.    In the result, this application is allowed and order dated

28.01.2012/30

.01.2012 passed by CJM, Darbhanga in Singhwara P.S.Case 4/4 No.101 of 2010 is quashed and the case is remitted back where the court below shall proceed in accordance with law.

(Sanjay Kumar, J) B.Kr./-

AFR/NAFR       AFR
CAV DATE

Uploading Date 31.07.2017 Transmission 31.07.2017 Date