Sudama Sao vs The State of Jharkhand

D.K. Sinha, J.—Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of his entire criminal proceedings arising out of Panki P.S. Case No. 56/2006, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1058/2006 by which cognizance of the offence has been taken under Sections 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code as also u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Daltonganj.

Prosecution story in short was that the Circle Officer of Panki Block, namely, Anil Kumar Sinha presented a written statement on 22.7.2006 before Panki Police narrating, inter alia, that a Mini Truck No. BR-15G-0012 was intercepted, which was carrying 62.50 quintals of rice and the informant suspected that the rice belonged to the Government organization and the same was obtained by the Petitioner Sudama Sao from the P.D.S. Dealer Rajendra Sao to be sold in the black market and that the mini truck was being driven by Girwar Ram.

Police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the Petitioner Sudama Sao and the driver Girwar Ram for the alleged offence under Sections 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code as also u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, pending investigation against other accused as F.I.R. was instituted against as many as seven named accused persons.

Learned Counsel Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that the prosecution of the Petitioner for the alleged offence u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was not maintainable for want of alleged violation by the Petitioner of any Order/Rule framed u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act so as to call for punishment u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It was alleged that the Petitioner had carried 62.50 quintals of rice from one Rajendra Sao, a dealer under Public Distribution System. There was no material except the confessional statement of this Petitioner before the police that he had obtained such quantity of rice from the shop under P.D.S. of Rajendra Sao. But on physical verification his stock was found intact, as such Rajendra Sao was not sent up for trial in the final form submitted by the police as it could not be established that the Petitioner had purchased the rice which was allotted to be distributed through Public Distribution System.

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned Counsel, further submitted that admittedly Petitioner was not the P.D.S. Dealer and that he had purchased the rice from the farmers of the locality. When the prosecution failed to establish that quantity of rice, alleged to be carried by the Petitioner on the Mini Truck, did not belong to be distributed through P.D.S. then in such situation neither the offence under Sections 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code nor u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was attracted against the Petitioner. The offence was of the year 2006 and that except the Petitioner herein, nobody could claim the rice and therefore, he requested before the court for release of the rice in his favour. Mr. Kumar explained that stock limits, distribution and transportation etc. on the rice, wheat and other edible articles were abolished, pursuant to the notification issued by the Central Government dated 15.2.2002, which was adopted by the Government of Jharkhand vide resolution dated 24.4.2002 contained in Letter No. 559 and the said notification was applicable on the date of alleged occurrence i.e. on 22.7.2006 (Annexure-3 of the petition).

Finally, Mr. Nilesh Kumar submitted that this Court time and again has observed that initiation of prosecution of an accused u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act without allegation of violation of any control order as framed u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act would amount to an abuse of the process of the court as such the prosecution of an accused in similar situation was liable to be quashed. In this connection, reliance was made upon unreported decisions of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1780 of 2007 recorded on 7.1.2008 and in Cr.M.P. No. 1591 of 2007 recorded on 6.12.2007.

Heard Mr. S.K. Srivastava, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, who did not dispute the legal position as presented by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, accordingly, criminal prosecution of the Petitioner Sudama Sao in Panki P.S. Case No. 56/2006, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1058/2006, pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Daltonganj is quashed.

This petition is allowed.