Ram Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P.

J.C. Mishra, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.9.1984, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act Lalitpur dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.12.1983, passed by Munsif Magistrate (Lower Criminal Court), Lalitpur convicting the revisionist u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to fine of Rs. 1000.

The prosecution case is that S.I. Shyam Manohar Tripathi found the revisionist carrying 20 bags of cement without any permit. He registered a case against the revisionist u/s 3/7, E.C. Act for violation of U.P. Cement Control (Third Amendment), Order, 1978. After investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet u/s 3/7, E.C. Act. The learned Magistrate believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. The appeal preferred by the revisionist was dismissed.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist Sri K. K. Dubey contended that the Magistrate committed illegality in taking cognizance of the case on the charge-sheet. He referred to Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act and contended that the cognizance of the offence would be taken on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by order of, or under authority from the District Magistrate or such other officer as may be empowered by the State Government by general or special order in this behalf. The learned Counsel contended that since the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence on the charge-sheet submitted by the Sub-Inspector who was not authorised by the District Magistrate or any officer empowered by the State Government. The learned Counsel also referred to Notification No. 8753/XXIX-A v. 2-27 (C.M.)-72 dated December 1, 1973, by which the Governor had appointed Block Development Officer of Uttar Pradesh to exercise the powers and perform the functions of enforcement officers within their respective blocks under the U.P. Cement Control Order. The learned Counsel contended that since the Sub-Inspector of Police was not a person authorised he could not have performed the functions of the enforcement officers.

On the consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the Magistrate committed illegality in taking cognizance of the case on the charge-sheet which was filed without order of or under authority of the District Magistrate or empowered officer.

The revision is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. The sureties are discharged.