PHALGUNI DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Midnapore (E.C. Act), hereinafter referred to as Judge, Special Court, on 24.7.87 in D.E.B. G.R. Case No. 8 of 1984 whereby he rejected the petitioner's prayer for quashing the proceeding.

(2.) On 16.3.84 at about 10.25 hrs. one M.M. Chakraborty, Inspector, D.E.B., Midnapore being accompanied by other Police Officers: and witnesses inspected the business place and godown of Gangadhar Dutta and others situated at Ghatal, Alamganj when Gangadhar Dutta was not present at the shop, but his son-cum partner Phalguni Dutta, the present petitioner was conducting the business. On demand he produced the licence for pulses and edible oil etc. in the name of Gangadhar Dutta and others having endorsed godown at holding no. 31, Ward No. 4 under Ghatal Municipality. The present petitioner also produced the stock books, cash memo books, stocked-rate board etc. of the said shop but there was no licence for sugar and the godown was also unauthorised one without having any licence. The petitioner was arrested on the same day i.e. on 16.3.84 and on a written complaint lodged by the said M.M. Chakraborty, Ghatal P.S. Case No. 6 dated 16.3.84 was started under section 7(1)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for violation of para 12(a) of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible this (Dealers. Licensing) Order 1978 and para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stock and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977 and Para 3 (a) of the West Bengal Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1980 read with para 2(a) of the said Order. Though the accused Phalguni Dutta i.e. the present petitioner was arrested in connection with aforesaid case on 16.3.84 but the charge sheet in that ease was ,submitted on 30.9.86 i.e. long after expiry of 6 months from the date of his arrest. The learned Judge, Special Court appears to have taken cognizance of the offence on 13.3.87 on the basis of the said police report i.e. charge sheet submitted in the case The present petitioner filed a petition before the learned Judge, Special Court for quashing the proceeding on the ground that the case being triable under summons procedure as provided under section 12AA(1) (f) of the Act, 1955 read with section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) the investigation that was carried on after expiry of 6 months from the date of arrest of the accused Phalguni Dutta was without jurisdiction and that cognizance taken on police report based on such investigation was illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned Judge, Special Court relying upon the decision in the case of Lakshmi Kanta Dey v. State of West Bengal reported in 1986 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter 158 has held that the provisions of section 167(5) of the Code do not apply to the cases which are initiated for an offence punishable under section 7(1) (a)(ii) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge, Special Court by his order dated 24.7.87 rejected the petition filed by the accused-petitioner.

(3.) Being aggrieved by such order of rejection, the present petitioner has preferred the instant revision challenging the legality and propriety of the said order. Mr. Guha, learned advocate for the petitioner referring to the provisions of section 12AA(1) (f) of the Act and laying stress upon the words "case triable by a Magistrate as a summons-case," as appearing in sub-section 5 of section 167 of the Code has argued that though a case relating to an offence punishable under section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act is a warrant case still in view of the provisions of section 12AA(1) (f) of the Act, such case pending before the learned Judge, Penal Court has turned to be a case triable by him as a summons-case within the meaning of said sub-section of section 167 of the Code and that as such the learned Judge, Special Court is also competent to make an order under the said sub-section in a case under section 7(1) (a)(ii) of the Act pending before him awaiting completion of investigation. He has further argued that this aspect of the case was not considered by Shamsuddin Ahmed J. while arriving at his decision in the case Lakshmi Kanta Dey v. State of West Bengal (Supra) and in support of his argument he was relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case reported in 1986 Cri. L.J. 1456. In this connection he has also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1979 Cri. L.J. 1052.