A KRISHNAIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for my consideration in this petition is whether a person could not be prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, when proceedings against him were dropped under Section 6-A of that Act?

(2.) The petitioner is doing business in iron and Cement under the name and style of 'Akarapu Sivaprasad' at Nagarkurnool and Palem in Mahaboobnagar district. He was granted a licence under the Cement Control Order. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Mahaboobnagar inspected his shop at Palem on 12th March, 1980 and found some irregularities in the sale of cement. He submitted a report to the Joint Collecfor Mahaboobnagar to initiate action against the petitioner under Section 6 A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) He seized the cement stock. He also filed a chargesheet in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nagarkurnool for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act.

(3.) The Joint Collector issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause against five charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation. After enquiry, the Joint Collector, by his order dated 23rd January, 1981 held that the five charges were not proved and, therefore, dropped the proceedings and directed the release of the seized stock or its value to the Petitioner. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, did not file any appeal against that order and, it has become final.