Krishnanand Sao @ Krishna Sao vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Kumar, J.—The sole petitioner in the present petition filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 14.9.2010 passed in Ghoshwari P.S. Case No. 22 of 2010 (G.R. No. 497 of 2010) by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh (hereinafter referred to as the "Magistrate"). By the said order, the learned Magistrate after submission of charge-sheet has passed the order of cognizance u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "E.C. Act"). Short fact of the case is that on the written report of the Block Development Officer, Barh, an F.I.R. vide Ghoshwari P.S. Case No. 22 of 2010 was registered on 21.4.2010 for the offence u/s 7 of the E.C. Act against the petitioner on an allegation that in residential premises of the petitioner, 354 packets of rice (weighing 161.66 quintals) and 62 packets of wheat (weighing 28.65 quintals) were recovered. It was alleged that the petitioner had stored these food-grains for the purposes of blackmarketing. Seized foodgrains were kept in machine-stitched bags, having label of Food Corporation of India and on query, the petitioner did not show any valid paper. It was further disclosed in the F.I.R. that on earlier occasion also against the petitioner under the provision contained in E.C. Act, a case was registered. After investigation and collecting materials showing involvement of the petitioner, police submitted charge-sheet and thereafter, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order took cognizance of offence u/s 7 of the E.C. Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of argument, had argued that the petitioner was not a dealer and as such, he was not liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of E.C. Act. He further submits that there was no material to show that the petitioner had stored the foodgrains for blackmarketing. In support of his argument that petitioner being not a dealer was not liable to be prosecuted, Sri Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court, reported in Sri Narayan Prasad @ Sri Narain Sao and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, . He submits that the present case is squarely covered by the said Division Bench judgment of this Court and as such, the order of cognizance is liable to be set-aside.

Sri Nand Kishore Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is habitual offender of committing offence under the provisions of E.C. Act. He submits that prior to institution of present case, on earlier occasion also he was made accused and an F.I.R. u/s 7 of the E.C. Act was lodged against the petitioner and in the said case, charge-sheet No. 58 of 2006 was submitted u/s 7 of the E.C. Act. The allegation in the said case was in relation to the blackmarketing of Kerosene oil. He submits that the petitioner though was not dealer was indulged in commission of offence of blackmarketing of the foodgrains and huge quantity of bags of foodgrains, having label of Food Corporation of India, were recovered. He further submits that learned Magistrate on the basis of charge-sheet has taken cognizance and there is no error in the same. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court, reported in Arjun Paswan Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, .

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner had tried to assail the order of cognizance on the plea that the petitioner being not a dealer was not liable to be prosecuted, he had not placed any provision to show that other than dealer may not be prosecuted for the offence u/s 7 of the E.C. Act. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Sri Narayan Prasad''s case (supra), the petitioner may not get any help from the said judgment. In the said case, seizure memo as well as confiscation proceeding was under challenge and main issue in the said case was as to whether Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was authorized to conduct raid/seizure, or not. The Division Bench of this Court had primarily dealt with the issue in relation to the authority of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police to conduct raid and prepare seizure memo in relation to offence under the provisions of E.C. Act. Of course, in the said case, this Court had discussed regarding allegation of blackmarketing, but the said case was decided in relation to confiscation proceeding and seizure memo. Nor in the said case, it was decided that other than dealer is not liable to be prosecuted under the E.C. Act. Prima facie, on perusal of the F.I.R. and materials on record, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has not committed any error while passing the order of cognizance. So far as judgment, which has been relied by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is concerned i.e. Arjun Paswan''s case (supra), the said judgment is equally not having any application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said case, the issue was as to whether the dealer is liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of E.C. Act or not on the ground that dealer being agency of the State was exempted from prosecution. The Division Bench of this Court, which had decided the issue on reference, has conclusively held that the dealer may not be construed as agent of the State of Bihar and it was held that dealers are also liable to be prosecuted under the E.C. Act. At the time of argument, though learned counsel for the petitioner had taken the plea that the petitioner was not liable to be made accused for the offence under the provisions of E.C. Act, learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought any provision or law to the notice of this Court to substantiate his submission. Only submission was made that too without any supporting materials and as such, plea taken by the petitioner is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected.

After going through the materials available on record, the Court is of the opinion that there is no defect in the order of cognizance.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Keeping in view the fact that the order of cognizance was passed in the year 2010 itself, while dismissing the present petition, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay.