Hari Prasad Agrawal vs The State of Bihar and Another

S.N. Mishra, J.—Both these applications arise out of the same order and, as such, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

In Cr. Misc. No. 16172 of 1992, the Petitioner Hari Prasad Agrawal is the President of Riga Sugar Co. Ltd. Riga, District Sitamarhi (hereinafter referred to as the Company), whereas Prabhakar Prasad Verma, is the Senior Cane Manager, who is the Petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 16173 of 1992. The Petitioners have filed these applications u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 2.9.1992, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby a cognizance has been taken of an offence punishable u/s 52 of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for violation of the provisions contained u/s 13(9) of the said Act.

The case of the prosecuting briefly stated is that the complainant, the Cane Officer, Muzaffarpur, who is the opposite party No. 2 in these applications, has (sic)ed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi to the effect that the Petitioners, who are the owner and Manager respectively of the Company, in question, has closed their mills inspite of the specific direction, issued by the Cane Officer as well as the Cane Commissioner not to close their mills unless and until the entire sugar cane allotted to the mills are crushed during the relevant season. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, a case was registered being Case no 219 of 1992 and transferred to the Court of Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate Sitamarhi for disposal, a copy of the complaint petition has been made Annexure-1 to the petitions. Admittedly the Petitioners Hari Prasad Agrawal and Prabhakar Pd Verms are the President and Senior Cane Manager of the Company, in question and the said company is registered order the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The aim and object of the Act is to regulate the production, supply and distinction of sugarcane intended for use in Sugar Factory and Khandsari Sugar manufacturing Units and taxation of sugarcane and matters incidental thereto. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the materials on record took cognizance of the alleged offence against the petitioner a copy of which is made Annexure-7 to the petitions which are under (sic) before this Court.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has assailed the order of cognizance firstly on the ground that on the allegations made in the complaint petition, no case is made out, inasmuch as, the allegations made in the complaint petition, even taken on its face value, do not constitute an offence under the act and/or rules framed thereunder. Secondly that the Cane Officer has not been authorised by the State Government in term of Section 52 of the Act to file such complaint petition. It is then submitted that the Cane Commissioner granted approval to institute the in-sant case against the Petitioner without, applying his mind and, as such, the very initiation of the proceeding is vitiated in law. Lastly it is submitted that the Act and the Rules framed thereunder do not authorise that the Cane Officer or the Cane Commissioner to issue any such instruction. In opposition the learned Counsel for the State however, has submitted that the allegation made in the complaint petition did constitute the offence and all the Cane Officers of the State have been authorised to institute such proceeding in terms of Section 53 of the Act and further the Cane Officer and/or the Cane Commissioner for that purpose are fully competent to issue such instruction. In order to appreciate the argument of the learned Counsels for the parties it is necessary to notice some of the relevant provisions of the Act. Clauses 8 and 9 of Section 13 are in the following terms:

(8) The Cane Officer may issue such instruction for equitable purchase of cane as he deems necessary and such instructions shall be complied with immediately;

(9) the occupier of a factory, the owner of a unit, persons acting on their behalf, every sugar cane grower or other persons or a co-operative society shall comply with any order, direction or instruction issued under this Section.

On a mere reading of the aforesaid sub Clauses 8 and 9 of Section 13, it is crystal clear that the occupier and owner of the factory or any unit, the persons acting on their behalf including the Cooperative Society shall comply with any, order or direction or instructions, issued by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act.

Section 52 of the Act is also relevant which reads as follows:

Penalty for offences. - If any person contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the Rules or of any order made or direction given thereunder or the terms and conditions of any licence, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both and in the case of a continuing contravention, with an additional fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first contravention:

As stated above, a clear direction was issued both by the Cane Officer as well as the Cane Commissioner to the owner and occupier of the factory, in question, not to close their mills unless and until the entire sugar canes crushed and during the crushing seasons which have been allotted to the company in accordance with the provisions as contained in Section 31 of the Act. Admittedly having not complied with the said directions by the owner and/or occupier of the company, I am of the view that the Petitioners are liable to be prosecuted for contravention of the provisions of Sub-section-9 of Section 13 of the Act. So far the second submission is concerned, learned Counsel has relied upon a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Prithvi Chand Khandolia and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (1997(1) P.L.J.R. 793) and submits that the so called approval granted by the Cane Commissioner in the instant case is not in accordance with law and accordingly the order taking cognizance of the alleged offence against the Petitioners is fit to be quashed. The submission is wholly misconceived and has to be rejected as such. In the aforesaid decision as the fact discloses the Cane Commissioner has only endorsed the complaint petition by saying "Approved" without giving any reasons whatsoever and on that ground the learned single judge has quashed the proceeding. In the instant case the Cane Commissioner has assigned the reasons for giving approval to initiate a proceeding for violation of the provisions of the Act as it appears from his order dated 23.7.92. In this connection, a letter dated 21.4.92 is relevant which can be taken note of, wherein the Cane Commissioner has directed the owner and occupier including the General Manager of the Sugar Mills not to close their mill unless the entire sugar cane are crushed in their respective mills in the interest of the sugar cane grower, a copy of the said letter is made Annexure-3 to this application.

After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record including the order taking cognizance. I do not find any merit in the applications, which are accordingly dismissed.