JAI PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Code) an order purporting to have been passed under section 319 of the Code directing the applicant to face his prosecution for committing an offence under section 3/7 read with Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is being impugned.

(2.) One Badal Dass is being prosecuted before the special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) under section 3/7 of the Act. The prosecution Case is that Shri Banal Dass, a licensed miller, failed to supply to the State Government certain quantity of rice thereby contravening clause (3)(i) if the U.P. Rice and Paddy (Levy, Regulation and Trade) Order, 1981. The prosecution examined Shri Jai Prakash, the applicant, as one of its witnesses. In his deposition the applicant admitted that during the relevant period he was running the rice mill in question on behalf of Shri Banal Dass and during the relevant period he was in actual physical control of the rice mill. He also deposed that he was aware that certain amount of rice, had to be supplied to the State Government as a levy. Shri Banal Dass made an application under section 319 of the Code praying that the applicant too be prosecuted along with him. The Special Judge while accepting the said application has taken the view that, prima facie, the applicant has committed an offence. He has, therefore, issued non bailable warrants against the applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on a combined reading of the provisions contained in Sections 8 and It of the Act it is apparent that the learned Special Judge has no jurisdiction to proceed against the applicant without taking a fresh cognizance of the offence as against the applicant on the basis of a report in writing made in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 11. The Special Judge cannot proceed against the applicant by taking resort to the provisions of Section 319 of the Code. In other words, the submission is that by necessary implication the operation of the provisions of Section 319 of the Code stands excluded in proceedings in respect of any offence punishable under the Act.