BINOY RANJAN CHOWDHARY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A modified ration distributor is the writ petitioner. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner and submitted that treating memo dated 7th November, 1988, a copy of which annexure-C to the petition, as the FIR, Dinhata Police Station started case no.12 of 1988 dated 9th November, 1988, quashing of which has been prayed for by his client. A photocopy of the FIR was handed up and kept on record.

(2.) Mr. Basu submitted that the said memo which became the FIR does not disclose any offence. He submitted the said memo relied on report dated 4th October, 1988 of the Assistant Director, Inspection and Quality Control, Department of Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal. It appears from the said report itself that it is not conclusive. Though in the enclosure to the report the percentage of broken grains was mentioned but it was iterated therein that the quantities of samples were not sufficient for carrying out analysis. In spite thereof, by the said memo the CISF, Dinhata alleged it was evident the writ petitioner had replaced some bags of rice of FCI by inferior quality of rice at his godown with a view to get illegal profit and had thus violated the provisions of Section 8 the Anti-Profiteering Act, 1988 and was liable to be prosecuted under Section 8 thereof.

(3.) Mr. Basu drew the attention of the court to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act. Sections 6,7 and 8 of the said Act have been reproduced in paragraph 36 of the writ petition. Mr. Basu submitted that none of the provisions contained therein can be said to have been violated and as such the said memo having been treated as the FIR does not disclose an offence. According to him his client's case comes within the guidelines laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR(SC) 604) for the FIR to be set aside and quashed in writ jurisdiction.