Manoj Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. A.K.Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.N. Ojha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.8.2021 passed in Cr.Revision No.84 of 2019 and the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hazaribagh, in Sadar P.S. Case No. 632 of 2012, G.R. No.3354 of 2012 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected and has been affirmed by the court of learned Sessions Judge. The discharge petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh which was challenged before the learned revisional court and the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh has also been pleased to dismiss the revision petition.

The prosecution was initiated against the petitioner alleging therein that on the basis of written report of one Sukhdeo Hembrom, District Agriculture Officer cum Fertilizer Inspector addressed to the Officer in Charge, Sadar Police Station, Hazaribagh dated 29.7.2012 alleging inter alia that on the direction of the S.D.O Sadar the informant along with other officials raised Sonu Traders, Korra Road, Hazaribagh and had recovered bags containing fertilizer from there. The raiding party raided the godown of the Sonu Traders and recovered and seized huge quantity of fertilizers as per the seized huge quantity of fertilizers as per seizure list from there. It has further been alleged that the owner of Sonu Traders namely the petitioner used to sell the fertilizer on high price. It is also alleged in the written report that the petitioner had license upto 31.3.2013. It is alleged that the petitioner violated clause 19 and 23 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.

Mr. A.K.Kashyap, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the cognizance has been taken under several sections of I.P.C as well as under clause-19 and 23 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. He submits that in light of section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the penalties are prescribed. He submits that the learned court has not applied its mind and has taken cognizance under clause-19 and 23 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. He further submits that in light of clause 27 of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, the Fertilizer Inspector who is authorized by the State Government is the only authorized person to institute the F.I.R or to investigate however in the case in hand, the District Agriculture Officer cum Fertilizer Inspector has lodged the F.I.R who is not the competent authority. He submits that the recovery of empty bags are not the offence. On this ground he submits that the seizure is also bad in law.

On the other hand, Mr. Ojha, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the entry was not validly entered into the register which was required to be done. On this ground, he submits that there is no point of entertaining this petition and it is fit to be dismissed.

The Court has gone through the materials on record and in view of the submission of the learned counsels for the parties, the Court finds that the F.I.R was instituted by the District Agriculture Officer cum Fertilizer Inspector. Thus, prima facie it appears that the competent person has filed the case.

Admittedly, the violation of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 for which the punishment is prescribed under the Essential Commodities Act in light of sections 3 and 7 of the said Act. On perusal of cognizance order as well as the orders passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court whereby the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected, it has been discussed that under section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C and clause-19 and 23 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 the cognizance has been taken and based on that, the discharge petition has been rejected by the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court.

Admittedly, the penalty is prescribed under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in violation of any of the clause of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and the learned court has taken cognizance under clause-19 and 23 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, which shows that there is no application of judicial mind and subsequently the discharge petition has been rejected which has been affirmed by the learned revisional court and in light of that, it appears that the learned court has not applied its judicial mind under the Indian Penal Code and under clause-19 and 23 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. As the provision has been prescribed under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

Accordingly, the order taking cognizance including the orders passed by the trial court as well as the court of learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr.Revision No.84 of 2019, arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 632 of 2012, G.R. No.3354 of 2012 are set aside.

The matter is remitted back to the learned court concerned to pass the further order in accordance with law.

Interim order if any stands vacated.