Puranmal vs The State of Bihar

Ramchandra Prasad Sinha, J.—This application u/s 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner, who alleges himself to be one of the partners of the firm known as M/s. Puranmal Jagdish Prasad, has alleged in this application that a complaint for his prosecution as well as the prosecution of the firm was filed on 25.6.1981 for violation of the provisions of Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Price and Stocks) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Display Order) and on the same day cognizance was taken.

The ground taken by the petitioner is that no sanction for his prosecution, as required under the proviso to clause 6) of the aforesaid Display Order has been given by the District Magistrate. In mpport of his contention reliance has been placed on annexure-2 which is the order of sanction dated 22nd. June 1981 given by the Dist. Magistrate, Monghyr. On the basis of that lea ned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has contended that sanction has been given to prosecution of the firm and not the petitioner.

In order to appreciate the point, the sanction order is quoted herein below :--

I Shri Rama Shankar Tiwary District Magistrate, Monghyr hereby sanction Sri Jagarnath Ram Assistant Marketing Officer, Sadar Monghyr to file prosecution under Essential Articles (Stocks and Price Display) Order 1977 against M/s. Puranmal lag-dish Prasad, Betwan Bazar, Monghyr Prop. Puranmal son of Late Suraj Mal Monghyr town.

The aforesaid order of sanction shows that sanction has been given to the Assistant Marketing Officer, Sadar Monghyr to file prosecution under the Display Order against M/s. Puranmal Jagdish Pd., Betwan Bazar, Monghyr Prop. Puranmal son of Late Suraj-mal Monghyr town. According to his contention the proprietor Puran Mal is the description of the firm, as the word ''and'' is not there between the name of the firm and Proprietor Puran Mal. There is substance in this contention made on behalf of the Petitioner. It has further been contended that for prosecuting the petitioner for the contravention of the provisions of the Display order, sanction is a must and the prosecution can not proceed in absence of the sanction against the person proceeded against. From perusal of the proviso, it is clear that sanction for prosecution must be given against the person concerned. From the sanction order, quoted above, it appears that the sanction has been given only against the firm and not against the petitioner and as such continuance of the proceeding against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly the application is allowed and the prosecution of the petitioner is quashed. It is however, made clear that the proceeding would continue against the firm.