Badri Prasad Sah vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel for the State.

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 07.02.2011 in T.R. No.1691/2011 arising out of Poraiyahat (Deodanr) P.S. Case No.205/2010 (G.R. Case No.1126/2010) under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Godda.

The FIR was registered alleging therein that on 17.09.2010 the informant Krishna Mohan Prasad, who is I/c Block Supply Officer, Poraiyahat got secret information that the petitioner, who is a dealer of fair price shop, Kairasole Panchayat under Poraiyahat Block is involved in black marketing of rice, sugar and kerosene oil of fair price shop. The informant along with the District Supply Officer, Godda reached the house of the petitioner at about 03:00 P.M. They searched the petitioner but he was not available there. Thereafter, they searched the shop of the petitioner in presence of the co-villagers, namely Uttam Kumar Roof, Asim Kumar Banerjee and Bijay Deo and found rice, sugar and kerosene oil of blue colour kept in that shop. During search the informant demanded papers regarding storage of rice, sugar and kerosene oil of blue colour from the family members of the petitioner, but they could not give any paper. Thereafter, the informant prepared seizure list and the seized articles were handed over to one Bishnu Kumar Agarwal on Jimmanama who is also a fair price shop dealer. None of the family members of the petitioner appeared before the informant to receive the copy of the seizure list. Hence a copy of seizure list was pasted on the wall of the petitioner's house.

Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and there is no mention what order has been violated by the petitioner under the said Act. He further submits that the petitioner has been false implicated in the case. He submits that the petitioner was running a fair price shop and he was a dealer bearing license no.7/84 situated at Kairasole Panchayat, Poraiyahat. He also submits that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Priyanka Traders and his firm is duly registered under the provisions of Weight and Measure Act since 26.01.2006 bearing registration no.4193/2006 which is being renewed from time to time. He submits that the petitioner has purchased 36 bags of rice from the market duly constituted by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee under Jharkhand Agriculture Produce Market Act, 2000 after making payment of the market fees to the tune of Rs.684/-. To buttress this argument, he refers Annexure-4 of the petition. He further submits that the petitioner has further purchased 300 kgs of sugar from Sri Gopal Merchant, Bazaar Road, Dumka @ Rs.29.50/- per kg and the said receipt is annexed at Annexure-5 of the petition. He submits that even the FIR is registered by a person, who is not competent to register the same.

On these basis, he submits that the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed.

On the other hand, Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the State submits that the evidences are going on and some of the witnesses have already been examined and at this stage, this Court may not interfere with this petition.

The subject matter of institution of the case are rice, sugar and kerosene oil, which are alleged to be stored by this petitioner.

Clause 2(C) of the Order defines authority which means any authority not below the rank of Inspector of the State Government who is dealing in civil supply. Clause 10 of the Order envisages that an authority authorized by the State Government shall be competent to inspect or summon records or documents and shall conduct search and seizure. Therefore, an authority defined under Clause 2(c) of the Order has to be authorized by the State Government in terms of Clause 10 of the Order. Admittedly the I/c Block Supply Officer, who had instituted the FIR had never been authorized by the State Government. This aspect of the matter was considered by this Court in the case of Krishnapada Aich v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2022 SCC ONLine Jhar 1125, wherein it has been held as under:

“In absence of any denial that the Block Supply Officer has never been authorized by the State Government, plea of the petitioner has to be accepted that any search and seizure made by the Block Supply Officer would be quite illegal. Furthermore, the case lodged on the basis of such search and seizure certainly gets vitiated.”

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the State is concerned, that is not being accepted by this Court in view of the fact that it is well settled that if the High Court comes to a conclusion that no case is made out, the High Court can interfere even at later stage. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866. Further, this case is of the year 2011 and the matter is still pending before this Court.

In view of above circumstance coupled with the judicial pronouncement referred to above thus substantiates the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and applying the ratio as has been held in the case of Krishnapada Aich (supra), the I/c Block Supply Officer having been not authorized under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 for conducting search and seizure. The institution of FIR itself is vitiated and therefore having found merit in this petition, the same is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 07.02.2011 in T.R. No.1691/2011 arising out of Poraiyahat (Deodanr) P.S. Case No.205/2010 (G.R. Case No.1126/2010), pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Godda are quashed.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.