Yognarayan Choudhary vs The State of Bihar

The present petition has been preferred for quashing the

entire proceeding including the order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul.

The brief facts of the case are that the Block Supply

Officer, Triveniganj, filed a complaint dated 25.04.2010 before the

Officer In-Charge, Jadia Police Station inter alia alleging therein that

he received a secret information that government wheat totaling 238

sacks was lying on the roof of the house of one Ramdeo Choudhary

and thereafter the same was seized. The said 238 sacks was brought

on two tractors being driven by Md. Jabbar and the said 238 sacks,

brought on the aforesaid tractors, were received by one Yognarayan

Choudhary, a P.D.S. dealer, in lieu of the allotment made to him. The

said wheat was to go to the shop of the dealer at Koria Patti.

However, the same reached Nandana Panchayat. The said 238 sacks

of wheat was seized and it was alleged that Shri Yognarayan

Choudhary, a dealer, instead of taking the wheat to Koria Patti, had

taken the said wheat to an opposite place at a distance of 15 km. with

the intention of black marketing the same. The said wheat was

recovered from the house of Ramdeo Choudhary.

The police had registered a case bearing Jadia P.S. Case

No. 21 of 2010 dated 25.04.2010 under sections 7 of the Essential

Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''E.C. Act'') against

Yognarayan Choudhary and Ramdeo Choudhary. The Police had filed

charge sheet dated 13.04.2011 against one Pappu Choudhary under

section 7 of the E.C. Act, keeping investigation open against the FIR

named accused persons. Thereafter the Police had filed supplementary

charge sheet dated 29.03.2012 against the FIR named persons

including the petitioner herein under section 7 of the E.C. Act. In the

aforesaid matter while accepting the charge sheet filed against Pappu

Choudahry, cognizance was taken against the accused Pappu

Choudhary by the learned S.D.J.M., Supaul by an order dated

18.04.2011. Subsequently, summons have been issued for the offence

under section 7 of the E.C. Act against the FIR named accused

persons including the petitioner herein, by the learned S.D.J.M.,

Supaul by an order dated 17.04.2012.

The aforesaid order dated 17.04.2012 is under challenge

in the present petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the aforesaid order dated 17.04.2012 has been passed without any

application of mind and merely on the ground that cognizance was

taken against the aforesaid Pappu Choudahry earlier, hence summons

should be issued against the petitioner herein also.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find

that the learned S.D.J.M., Supaul has issued summons to the FIR

named accused persons, not only on the ground that cognizance has

been taken against Pappu Choudhary earlier, but has also found that a

prima facie case is made out against the FIR named accused persons,

one of them being the petitioner herein, warranting issuance of

summons against them, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the

impugned order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the S.D.J.M., Supaul.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no merit in

the present petition and the same is dismissed.