CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mahanthi Yadav and Another vs State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 7 November 2006 · Citation: (2007) 2 PLJR 289

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mridula Mishra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 239 · Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — Section 7
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39605 of 2005
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 346 words

Mridula Mishra, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the first paragraph of the petition. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2.

Petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order dated 18.6.2005 passed by the S.D.J.M. Birpur in G.R. No. 306 of 2003 arising out of Pratapganj P.S. Case No. 36 of 2003 whereby the prayer of the petitioners for discharge by filing petition u/s 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The only ground which has been raised by the petitioners for their discharge was that since they are not licensee under the Public Distribution System, cannot be prosecuted for offence u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of any of the conditions of the licence, relating to an allegation that the kerosene oil concealed and kept for black marketing was recovered from the house of the petitioners.

3.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been admitted that the petitioners were not the licensee but Jai Narain Rishideo who is also accused in this case was a licensee of Fair Price Shop under the Public Distribution System. He kept 9 drums of Kerosene oil concealed in the house of these petitioners for black marketing.

4.

Considering the admission on the part of the State that the petitioners are not licensees under the Public Distribution System, their prosecution u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is completely without jurisdiction. It is well settled that only a licensee under the Public Distribution System can be prosecuted for violation of any terms and conditions of the licence issued under Unification Order. This being the admitted position, the prayer of the petitioners for discharge should have been considered and allowed by court below. The S.D.J.M. Birpur without considering the legal aspect of the matter has dismissed the petition for discharge. Accordingly the impugned order dated 18.6.2005, passed by the S.D.J.M. Birpur in G.R. Case No. 306 of 2003 arising out of Pratapganj P.S. Case No. 36 of 2003 is quashed. This application is allowed.