NARU GOPAL DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Rule to quash the proceeding pending before the Special Court (Sadar) Midnapore in D.E.B.G.R. Case No. 4 of 1987 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as Act).

(2.) Facts leading to the prosecution against the petitioner are stated in brief : A police party raided the place of business and also the residential house on 15.1.87 between 13.00 to 17.00 hours of the principal accused Bishnupada Dey of Kumarhati, Keshiary, District-Midnapore. The accused Bishnupada Dey is said to have defaulted in producing books of accounts before the raiding party. They seized 14 bags of Atap Rice from a room and 15 bags boiled rice in another room. It is further alleged that 16 bags of common rice was seized from eastern side kept in a tile shed room of the courtyard. Inspector of police Sri R. N. Roy, Enforcement Branch, West Bengal who was heading the raiding party also seized 7 bags of sugar from another tile shed situated just adjacent to the house of the principal accused Bishnupada. Charge-sheet was submitted against the principal accused Bishnupada and this petitioner on 17.9.87 under Section 7(1) (a) (ii) of the Act for violation of para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks Prices of Essential Commodities order, 1977 read with item No. 1 + 6 of the first schedule of the said order and para 3(a) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967 and para 3(a) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Storage by consumers) Order, 1967. After submission of the charge-sheet it appears that the learned Special Judge has explained the accusations for violation of the above provisions and accordingly fixed another date for evidence of the prosecution witness. It is against this order the present petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the proceeding pending in the Special Court.

(3.) The petitioner has further stated that a separate confiscation proceeding is pending before the authority which is not yet disposed of. 4a. Law is too well settled that the confiscation proceeding and the prosecution lodged against the accused for violation of any orders punishable under Section 7 of the Act are two mutually exclusive proceedings and the result of one does not in any way influence on the other, in such premises, the pendency or finalisation of confiscation proceeding has least bearing on this case.